I have seen several articles recently that say that Ron Paul's newletter was full of racist remarks and support for far-out conspiracy theories. Why so little media coverage by the big boys?

While Pauls views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Pauls lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1

CNN picked up on it a couple of years back.

Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

I have been debating with a couple of his supporters and while they aren't racist, they sure seem to like the conspiracy theories.

I like his foreign policy items which basically say, 'we're going to get out of the expensive foreign wars that serve no great domestic purpose'.

I am very suspicious about his 'small government' tea-drinking, as I am when it comes up with any candidate. They never are quite willing to say just how the details of having police departments, schools, and welfare for the poor, sick, and elderly will work without government intervention. I'd rather see a plan for them with related figures than simply 'trust us- we're politicians- we wouldn't put your family out on the street!' No, it would be the banks that did that.

And I am appalled at his associations. Even if he denies being directly involved in writing his newsletters- which is a big stretch anyway- he should be denouncing them in the strongest possible terms. The fact that he isn't sends a clear enough message- bring out the klansmen!!!

I like his foreign policy items which basically say, 'we're going to get out of the expensive foreign wars that serve no great domestic purpose'.

I am very suspicious about his 'small government' tea-drinking, as I am when it comes up with any candidate. They never are quite willing to say just how the details of having police departments, schools, and welfare for the poor, sick, and elderly will work without government intervention. I'd rather see a plan for them with related figures than simply 'trust us- we're politicians- we wouldn't put your family out on the street!' No, it would be the banks that did that.

And I am appalled at his associations. Even if he denies being directly involved in writing his newsletters- which is a big stretch anyway- he should be denouncing them in the strongest possible terms. The fact that he isn't sends a clear enough message- bring out the klansmen!!!

I actually don't think he is a racist. I simply think he doesn't really care all that much about anyone that doesn't share his value system. Given his stances on immigration and welfare, it is almost impossible not to link him to racially insensitive comments as those areas tend to be heavily dominated by ethnic groups that are sensitive to what is said.

I happen to like his economic policies, but I completely agree with you that his stance on government services, specifically universal health care, makes him a non candidate for me. Health care is no different than defence. Everyone in the country benefits by having a healthy population...unless you would be happy that your next door neighbor is spreading tuberculosis and other infectious diseases to your new baby. Everyone shares in the benefits of health care the same way they share in the benefits of an appropriate military.

Some things simply shouldn't be privatized, and the limited government idea goes only so far before it becomes an obvious failure. But the truth is the USA has gone so far the opposite direction that Ron Paul's extreme views are gaining significant traction within the population. Some people might claim his supporters are conspiracy theorists, but really they are simply average people fed up with the way things are and looking for an easy solution. I consider his fervent supporters lazy and gullible, but not weird or abnormal.

His message resonates with people because there is a kernel of truth to it. And if he would moderate his beliefs to come back a bit towards reality, he would definitely stand a chance of winning. But Ron Paul has proven time and time again he is uninterested in reconsidering his Libertarian agenda, even if one could show how untenable the idea was. If I thought his plan could actually work and would be morally acceptable, I'd support him.

I wish someone would cross him with Jimmy Carter. That would be a great candidate. Maybe with genetic engineering one day we can find the right balance of traits.

Is Ron Paul A Racist Conspiracy Theory Kook?Why little media coverage?

No he is not....As for why little coverage...well that is obvious as it is not true yet kooky sites must report as such because this thread shows it....Then again RP gets pretty much ignored by the media in general & debates as he does not serve the usual suspects who control those we are to pick from.

I would suggest the best way to know the man is read his books...Although that takes more efort than reading some web blurb...They will answer all your questions & make clear how things he stands for have been twisted by those who stand to lose various forms of support for *their* agendas that do nothing good for the USA.

Ignoring him seems to be over. The media are really concentrating on those old newsletters with racist remarks and conspiracy theories and Ron Paul's old statements and actions are coming back to haunt him.

I just saw a reporter on CNN claim that neo-Nazi websites were fund-raising for Paul last election and he did nothing to disassociate himself from them. He also said that Paul gave a speech in which he claimed that Israel was putting Palestinians in concentration camps in order to indiscriminately murder them. These charges are getting serious indeed.

Just how many of Paul's controverisal views can he alone as President put intoaction? Every candidate makes campaing promises which he knows he'll never be able to really keep. One recent example is Obama closing Gitmo. One of the first things he did almost 3 years ago was to sign the order to close it, right? Yet it is still open. The list of broken campaign promises is endless and while I don't think Paul will be able to get rid of a lot of gov't programs - he'll be able to stop new ones. He may not be able to get our mllitary out of foreign countries, but he can keep them from going to new ones. He may not be able to abolish the Fed but he can influence who the next xhairman is. I also don't mind his ideas of letting other countries fend for themselves for a change - as long as IF something bad does happen, we don't just sit on the sidelines and watch.

An old article for the Paulistinians to ponder. It is basically the same charges against him that are circulating now, but with more in-depth coverage.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?page=0,0&id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

I make judgements about candidates based on their views, but to be honest, they really don't have quite as much power as people would like to believe, at least inside the US. When they say they are anti/pro abortion, death penalty, war, poverty, social security, health care, education etc.. it makes little difference. Congress and the Supreme Court have a big say in just how far left or right they can go.

Granted, they have a great deal of power to persuade congress--and a number of tools to get them to agree, but agree they must. There are a few notable exceptions, however.

I have not paid Ron Paul much attention in the past, but those newsletters really are a smoking gun.

(CNN) - Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if the Texas congressman won the 2012 GOP nomination.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/27/gingrich-wouldnt-vote-for-ron-paul/[/quote]

As an ignorant Englishman baffled by all the shenanigans surrounding nomination, may I ask a silly question? Isn't the crux of the matter who collects the most money? I suppose their policies will affect the amount of money they collect, unless of course they are mega-rich themselves. If Bill Gates wanted to be nominated, wouldn't it be a shoo-in, quite apart from policy questions?

No, but a lot of money helps. Rick Perry has lots of cash, but is floundering badly.

Ron Paul is so wrong on every issue it's tough to know where to begin.

Suffice to say his foreign policy stance is beyond even the Lunatic Fringe area.

I do not want Newt to get the nomination, but he is right again.

Well, we already knew that Ron Paul was anti-Israel but check this out:

In 2009 Ron Paul allegedly told a young conservative that he would not risk American lives to end a Holocaust.

http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigGovernment+%28Big+Government%29

(CNN) - Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he wouldn't vote for Ron Paul if the Texas congressman won the 2012 GOP nomination.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/27/gingrich-wouldnt-vote-for-ron-paul/[/quote]

No shit, Paul has been hammering him.

I was watching Fox last night and they hold Paul is more disdain than Obama. One commentator said something like he doesn't think the American people would elect such a hateful racist like Paul - this opinion based on newsletters from over 20 yrs the commentator admits to having never seen, just heard about.

There is a real political hatchet job being done on Paul from both sides of the establishment. He threatens Democrats by being fiscally conservative, and he threatens Republicans by wanting to be more isolationists. He offends both equally in wanting to actually follow the Constitution.

I don't agree in principle to his foreign policy, but more and more I am leaning to letting these other countries figure it out for themselves. Now if he would adopt a more isolationist policy while leaving the nuke option on the table for any country who thinks isolationism is a sign of weakness, then I would be more open to that. Yes, nuke anyone who happens to attack us. Much cheaper than sending troops or bombers.

I would still vote for him over Obama and so would Gingrich. Gingrich has just dropped to 4th in some polls after being on top for a short period. He will say anything to get attention and "I will not vote for Paul" fits the bill.

Ron Paul Tells Iowa Voters Sanctions Against Iran Are An “Act of War,” Says Mullahs Need Nuclear Weapons To “Gain Respect” From Israel

This guy is waaaay out there and has zero chance of getting the nomination.

Defending himself against charges of isolationism, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told voters in Iowa on Thursday that western sanctions against Iran are “acts of war” that are likely to lead to an actual war in the Middle East.

Paul, one of the leading contenders to win next week’s Iowa caucuses, said Iran would be justified in responding to the sanctions by blocking the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. He compared the western sanctions to a hypothetical move by China to block the Gulf of Mexico, which Americans would consider an act of war.

He also said he would not respond militarily to keep the strait open — because he would not consider it an act of war against the U.S. But if he were president, he would report to Congress on the issue, leaving it up to lawmakers to declare war if they wanted.

“I think we’re looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran,” Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are “planning to be bombed” and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is “no evidence whatsoever” that they have “enriched” uranium.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that “if I were an Iranian, I’d like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-sanctions-act-of-war20111229,0,4395532.story

This guy is waaaay out there and has zero chance of getting the nomination.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul said that “if I were an Iranian, I’d like to have a nuclear weapon, too, because you gain respect from them.”

http://www.latimes.c...0,4395532.story

Yea Ron. How about the treaties the Iranians made that they would not develop a nuclear weapon? Rationalize that away.

(Boon Mee please read your PMs. Look at the top of the page near your name and click on the image of a envelope).

Lots of *alleged* this & that on this topic.....

As I said before the best way to *know* the man is read what *he* has written.

He has stood by these same principles for decades, He is not one to be bought out by temp promises.

If you want the truth it is there.

Instead of picking up bits of this & that carefully selected by those who want to discredit the man or those who stand to lose something this country of ours ( USA ) cannot now or ever in the past could afford to supply ....then by all means judge him by what those folks put out there for the fish to bite.

But if you are seriously wanting to know the man & what he stands for get it from *his* lips....Not those others.

Lots of *alleged* this & that on this topic.....

As I said before the best way to *know* the man is read what *he* has written.

He has stood by these same principles for decades, He is not one to be bought out by temp promises.

If you want the truth it is there.

Instead of picking up bits of this & that carefully selected by those who want to discredit the man or those who stand to lose something this country of ours ( USA ) cannot now or ever in the past could afford to supply ....then by all means judge him by what those folks put out there for the fish to bite.

But if you are seriously wanting to know the man & what he stands for get it from *his* lips....Not those others.

We are supposed to read what "he" has written as opposed to what "he" has supported? Bet you wouldn't want us to apply this to all the other candidates.

By the way, I support some of the things he proposes but certainly not all of them. His foreign policy is ridiculous and unworkable and will make him un-electable.

Regardless of the outcome in Iowa, it is my hope he will gracefully retire at some point in time. If he stays in the race he will guarantee the reelection of Obama, and that is a much larger threat to the US than anything I can think of.

That is my worry as well.

We are supposed to read what "he" has written as opposed to what "he" has supported? Bet you wouldn't want us to apply this to all the other candidates.

By the way, I support some of the things he proposes but certainly not all of them. His foreign policy is ridiculous and unworkable and will make him un-electable.

Regardless of the outcome in Iowa, it is my hope he will gracefully retire at some point in time. If he stays in the race he will guarantee the reelection of Obama, and that is a much larger threat to the US than anything I can think of.

I did not mean it in the way you have interpreted it.

What I did mean was that if you read his books or actually heard his stance on things...completely as shown in his books & not just ascribe things to him as reported in websites etc as things he allegedly said....then you may have a better idea of what he is about.

As for what he supported? Perhaps you would give an example so I might understand your complaint.

Yes I would apply the same to all candidates not just him...why wouldn't I?

I do not agree that his foreign policy is bad nor that he is un-electable.

Same for your statement about him withdrawing or Obama would be elected.

If he had been allowed into the debates for the last presidential race along with McCain & Obama...Neither Obama nor McCain would have been elected in my opinion.

Same goes for this race....if by some miracle it came down to Paul vs Obama....Paul would wipe the floor with Obama in any debate. Any thinking US citizen would see clearly at that pint.

Lastly if he does not get the Republican nomination & he then did run on the Libertarian ticket....

again if he is this time allowed to be in the debates.....He would still make the others look like what they are....bought & paid for puppets.

The only reason these smear tactics are now so news worthy is the other candidates have nothing worthy to actually add to the real issues.

Instead let them talk about the debt, monetary policy, foreign policy, Afghanistan etc....

They cant because they dont really understand it....instead they do as they are bought/told to do as always..

Here comes your ignorant Englishman again!

Why is so much importance placed on debates? I have seen parts of some in the past... and they're pretty superficial on the issues; they have to be because of time restrictions. Are the electorate so attuned to TV soundbites that large numbers of them actually change their minds because of the debates?

IMO, the debates are a way for voters to get an overview of the different candidates views and then they can get more in depth coverage elsewhere.

Here comes your ignorant Englishman again!

Why is so much importance placed on debates? I have seen parts of some in the past... and they're pretty superficial on the issues; they have to be because of time restrictions. Are the electorate so attuned to TV soundbites that large numbers of them actually change their minds because of the debates?

I agree that the debates for party nominations are superficial......If these are the ones your talking about?

The ones where a panel asks the candidates a few superficial questions.....most times not allowing enough time to address the issues & mainly a pie throwing contest where instead they say how terrible the current prez is & why the other nominees are also bad.

But the debates between the current president & the ones who will run against him should show the public who has the brains to do the job.

The last election all we saw was a debate between the hopefuls as GWB was out of time & could not run again.

So basically we saw a bunch of promises of things that could not be achieved. But even with that we could see neither McCain nor Obama had any real knowledge of how our monetary system works....or does not currently work as the case may be.

Actually it was a perfect time to see it too because it was the start of the crisis which continues even now not just in the US but world wide.

In this next go round once party nominations have been made I hope the current President has the balls to debate openly on network TV.

“I think we’re looking for trouble because we put these horrendous sanctions on Iran,” Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are “planning to be bombed” and understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is “no evidence whatsoever” that they have “enriched” uranium.

Iran has 'enriched' uranium, for sure.

For current design nuclear power stations the fuel is enriched. (Yes, I know the Bushire PS was started in the 1970s - I visited it when Kraftwerk were building it then). But I assume that the equipment now being used is 'modern'. The enrichment factor is between 5% and 10%.

For nuclear weapons the enrichment factor is >80%. thus it would be easy for Iran to demonstrate that they are not enriching beyond (say) 20% and just as easy for the IAEA or any other inspection authority to monitor such processing.

But neither Iranian nor Western politicians want to tell the public that things could be this easy (if they are aware of the simple facts) because it is a useful tool for the politicians to posture and thus raise their profiles.

I see from the BBC today that Ron Paul is 76 years old. Surely that should rule him out as a serious candidate?