|« At shows I spit flows with seven deadly venoms||I give the rich a giant tax loophole, I leave the poor living in a poophole »|
The Washington Post reports that "Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say":
Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
Why doesn't anybody ask Paul who did right them? Is he claiming he was so unaware of his own business that he not only didn't write the articles, but he can't find out who did?
Let's pretend he is a complete racist. What could he possibly do as President that would not look an awful lot like the last two Presidents?
The important question is what he wouldn't have done:
Unless I am reading the site wrong, Ron Paul voted in favor of that act.
Never mind; I was indeed reading the site incorrectly.
Still, almost every Republican voted against it. So Bush wouldn't have done it, either right? I still don't see how racism makes a difference.
|<< <||> >>|