The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Ex-Ron Paul Aide Disputes Paul on Newsletters

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Ex-Ron Paul Aide Disputes Paul on Newsletters

By Jeffrey Lord on 12.20.11 @ 11:07AM

Did Ron Paul look Sean Hannity in the eye after the Sioux City debate on Fox News -- and play fast and loose with the facts of his newsletter?

In this video of Hannity interviewing Paul, at the 5:00 marker Hannity begins asking Paul about the newsletters. Paul flatly denies writing them. But never once mentions that he approved them. Instead, he directs Hannity to an article in the Texas Monthly that Paul says deals with the issue.

The Texas Monthly aricle requires registration for readers. But unfortunately for Mr. Paul, over at the site of the Capital Free Press (here) reporter Patrick McEwen registered and reports on what he found. And what he found directly contradicts what former aide Eric Dondero has said in The American Spectator. In the Texas Monthly, Paul steadfastly denies writing the newsletters. But never once hints that he personally approved them -- the charge Dondero is making.

Now, Dondero, in recent Comments posted (scroll down) on The American Spectator, challenges the truth of the notion that Congressman Paul somehow was unaware of the content of his controversial newsletters. He does confirm that Paul associates wrote the newsletters (including Lew Rockwell, the controversial ex-Paul chief of staff) but insists Paul himself was fully involved in the approval process. With Hannity sitting inches away on national television, Paul never admits that in fact he himself approved the newsletters… as Dondero now asserts… "every line of them."

The newsletters, which surfaced in the last presidential campaign, have re-emerged in a year in which other GOP presidential candidates have had their pasts re-opened for vetting. Old allegations about Newt Gingrich's marital infidelities, Mitt Romney's Bain Capital and Mormonism, and Herman Cain's problem with sexual misconduct allegations (all still unproven and flatly denied by Mr. Cain) have dominated the airwaves and the Internet. All have been grilled by Hannity on each allegation -- at length.

Says Dondero of the newsletter (full text below*), Ron Paul "did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and refax them to Jean to go to the printer." There is not a word of this in the Texas Monthly article that Paul uses to deflect Hannity.

On another occasion, Paul slips and slides through a 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer on the same subject. Paul repudiates what was written, but very carefully limits himself to saying he never wrote these things.

Here's the problem.

Ron Paul doesn't seem like a racist. He has in fact spoken out saying -- correctly -- that racism is in fact collectivism. He says this is simply not part of his character -- and his supporters insist this is so. Yet the newsletter content, publicized several years back by the New Republic, seriously opened the issue in documented fashion.

But the issue seems to be sliding, in light of former Paul aide Dondero's assertions that Dondero appears to have witnessed. The issue is moving slightly but critically from race -- to truth telling.

Simply put: did Ron Paul "read them, every line of them" and then sign off on them? Or not?

If Dondero is telling the truth, then Ron Paul looked Sean Hannity straight in the eye the other night -- and deliberately evaded the truth.

Four years ago he appears to have done the same thing to Wolf Blitzer.

For a candidate whose supporters routinely accuse George W. Bush of having lied about the Iraq War, the idea that Paul himself is repeatedly less than truthful -- with a specific accusation from a former aide -- is big trouble.

*Dondero's post to The American Spectator is reprinted below, verbatim:

Eric Dondero| 12.18.11 @ 8:24AM

Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the Newsletters (with major input from Murray Rothbard and Marc Thornton). Jean McCiver edited them for clarity and grammar out of the Houston office on Nasa Blvd. Ron was merely a figurhead.

But he did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer.

Eric Dondero, Personal Asst./Travel Aide
Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, 1987/88
Crdtr. Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. 1991
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997-2003

joseph| 12.20.11 @ 11:18AM

Why would you publish a whole blog post on some guy's unproven assertions in a comment? I mean seriously, if this guy did an interview or something I could trust him. You really seem to be grasping at straws here. For all you know, Eric could be completely lying. The fact that you choose to believe him really shows your bias.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:07PM

" Eric Dondero (or Rittberg, depending on which name he is going by at the moment) is a pathetic individual who cares only about himself.

This is someone who claims to be part of the libertarian movement, but his actions speak louder than words.

His hatred of Ron Paul leads him to challenge his former employer out of revenge. OK, fair enough. But then he withdraws from the race and endorses a big-government neoconservative in Paul's congressional district. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 5:18PM

Ron Paul's opponents have been using this against him for 15 years. He has continued to win with huge majorities in every race. Who cares what the neocons have to say? They have led us over the cliff long enough. They don't care if a Republican wins. They already own Obama. End the wars. Bring the troops home to their families. Let Israel carry it's water and die in it's own wars. 63 years of this nonsense is enough.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 5:26PM

Who didn't expect this to come up? It has been asked and answered for 15 years. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put the neocons back in the saddle again. So in a desperate attempt to retain some influence, they are destroying the Republican Party. The wars and the bailouts and the Federal reserve will come to an end soon. The country is bankrupt and no fairy tales by the neocons change the fact that empires end with their own hubris.

Ron and Rand for Sanity, Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:04PM

Do Your Homework.

" Submitted by Texas Little El on Sat, 12/08/2007 - 22:34:
Eric Dondero Is Ron Paul's ex-senior staff guy.
Ron fired him and Eric hasn't gotten over it yet, this being 5 years ago.

He lies about most things.
He supposedly knows 15 different languages but got caught in a lie of when he learned Spanish.

He was supposed to run against Ron Paul, but dropped out of the race when another Republican decided to run for office.

He supports Giuliani and even has deluded himself into thinking Giuliani has libertarian leanings.......That is one of the bigger stretches of the imagination.

He supports Giuliani and Ron's CD14 opponent so much he has given them huge amounts of money.......ok, that's a lie, he has given them nothing for their campaigns.

He either goes by Dondero or Rittberg.... no one can figure out when he will use which name. He likes to call himself a half jew, whatever that means. Though he isn't a practicing Jew at all. He has even deluded himself so much that he says Ron Paul demanded he wear a yamulke to a political function. Can you see RP demanding someone do something like that?

Needless to say he started off as a car driver for RP and has delusions of grandeur that he single handedly got Ron Paul elected to office the second time RP ran in 1996.

He was one of the people that started the Republican Liberty Caucus, and they got rid of him.

So far he is just a gadfly that won't stop writing nasty articles about Ron Paul, using whatever time he has to write nonsense in his attempts to get him out of office.

Oh, the final thing about Eric is on his libertarian blog he still has a praise that Ron gave him years ago. This is way nutty, in that if RP is supposed to be this big nut job, wouldn't he want to distance himself from him?

He is just a sad little man with no life unless he is the center of attention."

Quartermaster| 12.20.11 @ 6:36PM

Like Phillip Klein, Lord is showing just how small and contemptible he is.

The issue was dealt with years ago Lord. I note you don't link to the newsletters themselves, or any other comment about them.

For those who wish to see just how small a man Lord actually is go here:

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com.....ppear.html

The comments are to the point, and he links the newsletters themselves. Justin Raimondo has also dealt with them in an article I can't lay my hands on at the moment.

Lord, you are just a leftist masquerading as a conservative.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:31PM

" Ron Paul, Polls and Panic

The conservative media flips out over the latest front-runner

The Ron Paul Panic is officially under way.

The Texas congressman has been gaining strength in Iowa all year, but the media—and the Republican establishment—have been content to treat him dismissively.

Oh yeah. Interesting character. Seems to have tapped into something. Has a cult following. He can’t win the nomination, the refrain goes, but he’s an interesting sideshow.

But a couple of Iowa polls showing Paul bursting into first place—past the previously hot Newt Gingrich and the slow but steady Mitt Romney—are forcing the press to take him more seriously."

SpiralArchitect| 12.21.11 @ 5:50PM

'a whole blog post'

There ya go again, wasting the internet pages!

BRB| 12.20.11 @ 11:19AM

If Dondero is lying, then Ron Paul looked Sean Hannity straight in the eye and told the truth. Disgruntled former employes sometimes lie, as you well know.

William R| 12.20.11 @ 11:33AM

Dondero is a disgruntled former aid who was fired by the congressman. How in the hell does he know Ron Paul read the newsletters?? Was he living with the Paul family???

Good gawd Lord, you have to be the dumbest MFer I've ever encountered in cyberspace

Jeffrey Lord | 12.20.11 @ 11:41AM

So we are allowed to do political proctology with old allegations on Newt, Mitt, Cain, Bachmann, Perry et al...but Ron Paul is off limits?

I see.

BRB| 12.20.11 @ 12:03PM

The fact that it was wrong to take the accusations of disgruntled former employees at face value when Cain was the target does not make it right to take the accusations of a disgruntled former employee at face value when Paul is the target.

I think you know that.

9thID| 12.20.11 @ 12:09PM

This is how all Liberals react when someone dares question their cult-of-personality messiah. Ron Paul's Paulestinians are even more rabid than their Liberal cousins are for Obama...

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 12:26PM

You need to remind them about there chortling that 'when there is smoke, there is fire' when the allegations against Cain surfaced. I seem to recall that they had no problem with FULL acceptance and dog on a bone support for all the allegations against all the other competing candidates. I remember the rock gig with Perry and all the same chortling from the likes of Jackboot, Clint boy, and the WilliamR. Here we have written published articles pointing to possible racism that he approved and was editor of the publication with his name on it and we are being biased, grasping at straws, unfair, and dumb. Gee, they were real interested in that rock, the timeline, who painted it over, when, what color was the paint, and every possible inane detail and irrevelancy. Prima donna's, fanatics, and liberaltarians..yes the shoe fits. Every time they open their mouths they verify it.

Simon Templar's Moral Compass| 12.20.11 @ 12:48PM

It's good to see that in this age of iniquity you have your moral principles straight. If Jackboot and Clintboy did it to you, then you are justified in doing it to them. In your stocking this year you just might find that "WWJCD" (What Would Jackboot and Clintboy Do) bracelet you've been wanting, to remind you to live up to the examples you aspire to follow.

Simon Templar's Logical Mind| 12.20.11 @ 2:51PM

Jackboot and Clintboy have done nothing to me per se and this is not the issue that is being adressed here. Classic distraction technique on your part. Yes, deflect the issue and conversation away from Ron Paul and his supporters hypocricy and move it to my use of the Jackboot and Clintboy nicknames I gave them. That is your retort? Lame. Whether Clint calls people names and cute inane long winded adjectives is irrevelant, or anyone else, is irrevelant to the facts that I presented. Don't lecture me about morality or principles when you can not even achieve intellectual honesty and employ such cheap and lame and illogical rhetorical techniques.

Simon Templar's Thin Skin| 12.20.11 @ 3:23PM

No, silly, the point wasn't your use of insulting nicknames. The point is that your defense of Lord was to point out that what Lord is doing here is what Jack and Clint and others have done to other candidates such as Cain. But that only makes sense if you set your moral compass by the behavior of people like Jack and Clint. You could pick better examples to follow, that's all I'm saying.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:09PM

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 9:03PM

What Lord is doing here? You really need to go back and read my comment..all of it. That is not what I am saying. I was defending Lord's position and article on this subject. What Jack and Clint do is nothing like what Lord is doing. Lord is bringing forth substantiated facts not unsubstantiated allegations. Jack and Clint like the rest of these liberaltarian trolls can not accept the facts brought out here and have the arrogance to cry foul and claim that we should consider the accusers background and all sorts of other circumstances. What I am pointing out is the hypocrisy and double standard they seem to have when it comes to their candidate, they would not consider the accusers motivations when Cain was accused. This is not tit for tat. Its one set of rules for you and one set for me. Frankly, I am not in favor of any of this negativity and candidate slamming. What I want to see his SUBSTANTIATED, reasonable, and useful criticism. I have been calling for it for half a year now on this blog.

Once again, stop using my moniker, grow up and get some balls and your own moniker.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 2:57PM

By the way, have the balls to use your own moniker and not use mine in your little and lame cheap shot retort. Coward.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:57PM

Asked And Answered In The 2008 Election Israel Firster Propaganda Girl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg

Bob Mungenast| 12.20.11 @ 1:19PM

The difference, Jeffrey, is that the MSM gave all of the above-mentioned candidates MUCH more positive coverage than you gave Ron Paul. Let's be honest, you in the MSM flat 0ut ignored Ron Paul, and now that he has risen in the polls to be a top contender, despite a full media blackout, you feel it is time to put out the fire with this old, long-unproven garbage.

And to use someone like Eric Dondero, who has a history of bashing RP, as your only source, just proves that you are sloppy, and grasping at straws.

Any comeback?

Bob Mungenast| 12.20.11 @ 1:57PM

Didn't think so...

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 9:41PM

Umm, excuse me Bob, I have a history of bashing Ron Paul's foreign policy views, and going to extreme defenses of him on his economics and anti-nanny-state positions.

Get your facts straight.

C Bowen| 12.21.11 @ 6:28PM

You also think Saddam was behind 9/11--the ugliest of 9/11 Trutherisms.

Chris| 1.5.12 @ 11:41AM

Sorry Eric. But you cannot "defend his economics" and then criticize his foreign policy. They go hand in hand. How much debt did we run up the last 10 years from all of this war? Silly silly boy.

Caleb Plain| 12.20.11 @ 1:37PM

I'm still waiting for your "political proctology" on Newt. You're a hack, we get it.

Hey, think it might be worth mentioning that Dondero ran against Ron Paul for his house seat? Any questioning of Dondero's motive since he was a former opponent and disgruntled employee? You obviously ran this story without doing even the most basic research.

This is a smear job, not journalism. History will not look kindly on you and your co-conspirators. Our movement is growing as yours is dying. Quit while you're ahead.

Antiskeptic| 12.20.11 @ 1:56PM

Give the man a break. He found it on the interwebs so it must be true.

Jack in Wi.| 12.20.11 @ 2:47PM

Lord is the scum of the earth. He has never put 2 true words together about Ron Paul on this site ever. The desperation of the neocons is beyond belief. Their world is crashing down upon them. No prowar Republican can ever be elected President again. The neocon lies and BS have been exposed to the world. I will never vote for another Republican, if they keep this distructive effort going much longer.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 3:16PM

Yeah, you probably will not vote or vote for the democrat.

Josh| 12.20.11 @ 3:50PM

proctology away (you are) but consider the source. BTW Dondero is one of the former staffers who is suspected of having written several of the more inflammatory newsletters. He also has a history of pushing lies about Paul since being fired.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 4:56PM

" Ron Paul on Eric Dondero
In Libertarian, Republican, Terrorism on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 am

Just the other day Nigel told us about Dondero’s plan to run against Paul in TX District 14. We all think it’s a laugh, and apparently, so does Ron Paul. reason hit & run has a short interview with Ron Paul about his thoughts on Eric Dondero.

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Reason: But he says he’s running because of your debate performance. So is this presidential campaign weakening your standing in your district?

Paul: Well, if it affects my standing in my district then I wouldn’t be a very good candidate for the presidency. If these views are popular, and I think they’re popular enough, then they should be popular in my home district. They’ve been hearing me saying this for a lot of years and I keep getting re-elected rather easily. I think politicians are always concerned about how they’re doing in their district, but right now, if Eric Dondero is the only thing I have to worry about, then I don’t have a lot to worry about."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa,

joseph| 12.20.11 @ 11:23AM

Yeah it kind of says something that you gave any credit to an internet rant of a former employee.

Chris Olson| 12.20.11 @ 11:32AM

Perfectly on cue. The Neo-Con grist mill is in full production.

Even if Paul is dodging the question, comparing this to Bush's lies about WMDS is a stretch of extraordinary proportions...and since when did The American Spectator become so interested in pointing out alleged racial remarks connected with a conservative politician?

Looks like the powers that be are sending out the marching orders.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 12:33PM

No, the grist mill has been up and running for some time now and you and your ilk were working overtime down at the mill. Now that the grist is on your messiah you want to shut it down and you are going on strike. Looks like the paulbots are getting some of their own medicine and are crying as they say like little babies, right Clint? In fact, I have no doubt that there is a ton of stuff in Paul's background that has yet to surface that would make this seem very insignificant.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 4:59PM

Eric Dondero
" I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the-wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.

I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003"

Tea Party Patriots For Dr. Ron Paul Are Here And In Iowa.

Dixie| 12.20.11 @ 11:34AM

Lord would publish this because for the next week, everyone in the media is going to drag a Martin Luther King and Gandhi fan through the mud for supposed racism.

Funny how no one looks into Dondero, who some could claim reasonably is a bonafide fanatic and nut based on his internet writings.

The thing is, Ron Paul has mostly transcended these attacks. When Lord et al, Rushbo, and Hannity among other chickenhawks attack him, it only rallies people to his flag.

Like with the Herman Cain accusations, the damage wasn't done by the media, it was done by the truth.

And that is why Lord and others are working so hard to make a case that Ron Paul really is a racist, or at the very least a liar.

In a world where the Republican establishment would like a Mitt Romney or a Newt Gingrich, neither of which will beat Obama, the one candidate who attracts Reagan Democrats is being pushed down just as Reagan was once attacked by the same Republican establishment as an extremist.

It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Ron Paul's legacy will long outlive this week's attacks. He's changed American politics whether he wins or loses the nomination. He's changed the world for millions of people.

PattyMor| 12.20.11 @ 11:44AM

Sorry folks, but these newsletters went out under Dr. Paul's name, so he is responsible for them whether he wrote them, read them, approved them, or edited them. The buck stops with things done under the name of Dr. Paul. After all, they're HIS newsletters.

9thID| 12.20.11 @ 12:13PM

Now why did you have to bring logic, commonsense, honesty, and responsibility into the mix? Liberals just hate that...

Josh| 12.20.11 @ 3:53PM

you know he did accept moral responsibility for not reviewing them before they went out...right.

Highly amused| 12.20.11 @ 11:59AM

For his next act, Mr. Lord will be quoting Franz Fanon and selections from various Liberation Theology tracts in support of the Bush-Gingrich-Clintonian war-making policies, the Iraq war, and the military Leviathan.

Blaze away, Mr. Lord, this is getting good. Corporatist centrism is increasingly discredited, the only people you might affect are Obamabots and movement "conservative" hypocrites in any event. The deal breaker with Paul, for many, is the very thing you hate and loathe about him, namely his unwillingness to sell our grandchildren into debt slavery to subsidize foreign boondoggles, defense welfare, and Dubai villas for Afghan bandits.

SpiralArchitect| 12.21.11 @ 6:17PM

Ad honinem to the rescue. Keep up the good work.

No need to bash Paul, he speaks for himself enough to take care of that.

A fist full of good ideas makes a president not.

Red Phillips| 12.20.11 @ 12:02PM

"I actually think Paul is somewhat to blame for his newsletter problem. The abjectness of his disavowal gave credence to the charge that they were that bad to begin with, but the quotes in question were clearly pulled out of context for shock value and when read in context are easily defensible from a conservative standpoint. Justin Raimondo does a good job of demonstrating this in the link below. In fact, some of the supposedly shocking quotes happen to be true. Martin Luther King was a philanderer? Umm … well he was and this is common knowledge. Black men commit disproportionate amounts of crime? Umm … well they do and this too is common knowledge. So I guess part of the charge is that Paul spoke truth that isn’t supposed to be spoken?

What Paul should have done is apologized for what is arguably indelicate language but pointed out that the allegedly offending quotes were pulled out of context for shock value, and in context are easily defensible. That option has passed for Paul because he has essentially conceded with his disavowals the premise that they are “racist.” But it hasn’t passed for us, his defenders."

My post: http://conservativetimes.org/?p=10567

Raimondo link: http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1h2S6u1c3

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 9:45PM

People should also read the newsletter Raimondo put out at the 1988 Libertarian Party convention in Seattle - 6 pages, bashing Ron Paul on every topic imaginable. It was called "Ron Paul and the John Birch connection."

Justin walked up to Ron Paul in the hallway of the convention hall, and in front of some 100 witnesses started waving the Newsletter at Ron and Carol screaming at the top of his lungs, "You hate Gay people... You are not a Libertarian..."

This was back in Justin's male prostitute phase, when he was still concerned about sexual liberties, and before he became a lunatic leftist on foreign policy.

Ryan| 12.20.11 @ 12:17PM

Wow, EVERYONE is overreacting. Lord needs to look into the context of the quotes, as well as the veracity of the accuser.

Paul supporters need to do the same without leveling accusations.

There's a better way to treat each other. We can beat each other up, or we can do it with kindness.

In other words, "take the log out of your own eye..."

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:32PM

I believe that's called equivocating.

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 5:31PM

Actually, it's called Matthew 7:3-5

JP| 12.20.11 @ 12:24PM

Someone should ask Paul if his Wife and Daughter wrote them since they were on the Payroll. Surely they either wrote or read them to receive a salary from them, right? Just to make him squirm ask if they received a salary only because of Tax Evasion reasons.

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 9:48PM

Lori didn't write the newsletters per se. Often Ron would scribble stuff in his infamous doctor writing style on a yellow pad. Lori would "interpret" her Dad's writings, type it up, and then fax it to Lew. Lew would then edit and rearrange it all and put it into article form.

So yes, Lori was heavily involved, as well. But she also kept all the books and was more involved with total office management. I'd say Jean McIver was more hands on overall than Lori.

Dai Alanye| 12.20.11 @ 12:31PM

Here's a bit of good news for the Paulites. Walter Scott, it turns out, never "wrote" Ivanhoe, despite his name being on all editions of the book.

He merely dictated the words.

SpiralArchitect| 12.21.11 @ 6:19PM

Damn, that really turns my stomach.

Capt. Obvious| 12.20.11 @ 12:51PM

Paul runs TOWARD his 30+year voting record while every other candidate runs AWAY from theirs.

But oh yeah, the race card.

JP| 12.20.11 @ 1:03PM

Lifetime ACU rating is 80, worse than newt or Bachmann's career...by alot. He is from the Progressive Left

Red Phillips| 12.20.11 @ 3:04PM

As I said on another post, the ACU is an inaccurate way to judge Paul's voting record because it doesn't take into account the rational for why he voted how he did. For example, the ACU might score a vote for a Republican budget as a positive, but Paul will have voted against it because he votes against all budgets.

The better score is the John Birch Society score because they measure based on fidelity to the Constitution and not on whatever is the hot conservative issue of the day. Paul routinely scores 100%.

C Bowen| 12.20.11 @ 1:14PM

We must always remember that actual crimes were committed by those who lied the country into war by linking Saddam to 9/11, permitting torture amongst just a few and if they were capable of lying their own country into war, who knows what they are capable of doing to prevent answering for their crimes with stripped pensions and prison sentences if a serious, Country Class patriotic President is elected to clean out the stables.

Jeff Lord linking this non scandal to heading an administration that lied the country into war by linking Saddam to 9/11, proves the point.

Scared about your pension, Jeff? Prison?

Caleb Plain| 12.20.11 @ 1:42PM

I love the fact that Jeffrey Lord's articles are so poorly researched that he always finds it necessary to wade into the comments section to defend himself.

No credible journalist who feels confident his their work does this. It's a joke.

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 2:02PM

So let me get this straight, a former aide of a public figure has come out (surely with no agenda) to publically defame his former boss?

This reminds me of the time Scott Mclellan wrote a tell-all called "What Happened" in which he harshly condemned GW Bush for his deception and ill-motaived decision to go into Iraq at the height of the 2008 election. I remember how you Neocons accepted the validity of every piece of his story without so much as a second-thought....no wait, that's the opposite of what happened.

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 2:09PM

Also, I started to count the number of blogs you wrote in defense of Herman Cain whose former employees were accusing him of sexual harrassment, but got bored scrolling through them all.

In that case, you suggest in one blog, these former employees were going after Cain because of his race. (And you really don't see the irony, in that you use race politics exactly the same way as Communists and Left-Progressives?)

Caleb Plain| 12.20.11 @ 2:43PM

Great points Rob C.

Also, see Jeffrey Lord's endorsement of Rush Limbaugh for president, the guy who said "the NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

Such credibility. All this has absolutely nothing to do with Paul's foreign policy, I'm sure.

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 3:26PM

Also note the difference between a Congressional aide and the White House Press Secretary.

Also note the difference between attacking Mclellan's No 1 NYT bestselller and... praising comments written on Jeffrey Lord's own blog. I know he has an inflated sense of his own importance, but wow: The 13th blog in 17 days on Ron Paul, and he's at the point of using the comments of self-identified former Paul employee, posted on his own blogs in place of actual research. This is hysterical.

Note also how he never writes a blog directly responding to any of the hundreds of substantive comments posted on his own blog by Paul's supporters. Again affirming that Lord's interest in the truth is arguable, at best.

Finally, note also that Lord is taking sides (indeed, without even a question) with a man who actually worked for Ron Paul for at least 6 years from 1997-03. This was after 1988 Paul had ran against GH Bush and denounce many of Reagan's failures. This was after these Newsletters were written. This was after Paul had placed himself clearly on record as an anti-Interventionist. This was after Paul had solidified every single position that Lord finds detestible.

Yea, no reason at all to question the integrity or veracity of this former aide. Let's just publish blogs based on comments he wrote on another blog, and pass it off as a crushing expose.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 3:14PM

Robc,
Yeah, and I remember you and your troll libertarian friends out here on the offense, supporting, chortling and accepting all these Cain allegations as truth. In fact, one of your cadre has said such in this thread overlooking the irony and contradiction in her own argument. Sorry, you can not have it both ways nor can you pretend otherwise. Try again. By the way, you really do think exactly like liberals and use the same projection techniques. Simply amazing.

Caleb Plain| 12.20.11 @ 3:31PM

"Yeah, and I remember you and your troll libertarian friends out here on the offense, supporting, chortling and accepting all these Cain allegations as truth."

Good thing you hold Jeffrey Lord to the high standard of people posting in the comment section on a blog.

Awesome job defending Lord's piece. You're obviously a brilliant man, Simon. If only more journalists would look to the comment sections for ethics.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 9:16PM

So, you are the jackass using my moniker above in the thread. I am not doing anything of the kind. Not sure what the hell you are blubbering about. My comments were not a comparison of anyone's ethics but their claims, contradictory opinions, and contradictory positions that they have taken. I was pointing out the discrepencies. There is only one standard, jack ass, and that is logic and intellectual honesty. You could start by identifying yourself. I do not have to defend Lord's piece, it stands on its own merit. Deal with the news story and the facts presented and stop distracting from the issue being discussed in his article and the thread as well. At least Clint trys to respond occasionally with quotes and links to back up his points. Keep your sarcasm, it is not very good and I find it juvenile.

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 3:40PM

Simon Templar, you remember ME saying this? You're confused. You are obviously PROJECTING a certain view on to me that I never held. In fact, the serious Libertarian criticisms of Cain have been on his disastorous economic policies. Most of the intense interest in people's inconsequintial personal lives comes from the Neocon media and the Left-Progressive media: Eg, Rachel Maddow condemns Cain's sexual affairds; Sean Hannity replies/defends. Libertarians generally don't give a damn about these horse-race issues.

My problem with Cain is his philosophy (or lack there of), period.

It was obviously not Libertarians coming out to destroy Cain. It obviously IS the Neoconservative elite coming out to destroy Paul: Lord, Hannity, Malkin, Levin, Medved, Coulter, Limbaugh, et al......and I'm not projecting anything. These people are open allies with one another, and 2/3 of them have read Lord's blogs attacking Paul on air. It's not projection to suggest that Lord agreed with Limbaugh [whom Lord just wrote a blog on, endorsing for president] or Levin [who worships the ground Lord walks on], when it came to Mclellan and Cain's employees.

Lord's comrades made a big stink about Scott Mclellan being a Benedict Arnold, and Lord himself suggested that Cain's former employees were lying, without further investigation. No matter what was said, Cain's employees and Scott Mclellan were lunatics. Cain even DROPPED out of the race under the pressure of these 'lies' and still not one of these Neocon attack dogs has returned to say 'maybe there was something to all of these allegations.'

Yet, Lord is now saying that a former Ron Paul aide who posted comments on Lord's own blog is, ipso facto, credible.

Care to make the same criticism of Jeffrey Lord? I.e., "you can not have it both ways"?

aware| 12.20.11 @ 6:48PM

Yes.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 9:27PM

Robc,

Am I? You can make any claim about yourself that you like. You can doubleback, deny, or simply retract or clarify. Fine. Let us take "you" out of the sentence I wrote. It still stands on firm ground and is accurate.

Mr. Lord's article has been part of a series of articles that have brought forth more than what you are attempting to focus on right now. You are using an old and lame rhetorical technique whereby you attempt to discredit by focusing on one point and ignoring all the rest that has surfaced relative to the newsletters.

You do this as you really can not defend or explain away this story that is breaking.

Rob C| 12.21.11 @ 12:32AM

Simon Templar, your post is practically incoherent. I've commented on several of the blogs in Mr. Lord's "series," so I suppose you are just focusing in on one of my comments while ignoring the numerous other points I have made regarding these Newsletters and the whole cornucopia of slander and libel Mr. Lord has directed at Paul. Am I to restate and reiterate each and every valid criticism, on each and every glib blog in Mr. Lord's fascinating "series"?

Mr. Lord has not once taken the time to place these Newsletters in proper context. He has written 14 or 15 blogs in about 17 days, doing his best to discredit and slander the candidate that doesn't share his ideology. So, spare me the lecture about "focusing on one point and ignoring all the rest that has surfaced."

Mr. Lord has ignored an ocean of substantive arguments on the Newsletters, as well as arguments on serious philosophical and historical debates. He is the king of selective pleading.

Rob C| 12.21.11 @ 12:52AM

Also, there is no story breaking. Had you been following the news for the last 20 years, you'd know that this story already broke. There is no new evidence to break.

All of this is rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Arguments which you've clearly ignored.

Sparky| 12.20.11 @ 2:13PM

A newsletter that Paul authorized, that went out under his name and from which he profited contained vile stuff. Paul was responsible for it. If he neglected to review it, what does that say about his managerial competence?!? If a newsletter went out under my name, I'd darn well make sure that it represented my views!

Josh| 12.20.11 @ 4:01PM

Very true, but if you actually read the newsletter in full, and not just the shock value quotes pulled out of them they are not even racist. Certainly politically incorrect, but pointing out we can't forever spend money we don't have is also considered politically incorrct.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 7:00PM

Asked And Answered In The 2008 Election.

Gary| 12.20.11 @ 2:27PM

Although this is just the word of one former employee, it serves to reinforce what most people should see as rather obvious. Paul simply had to be aware of what was in the newsletters, and thus approved them. They were bringing in a lot of money, and he was willing to pander to bigotry to keep it flowing.

It's beyond incredible to think that EVEN IF he didn't read the newsletters, that someone in his family, social or professional sphere wouldn't have alerted him to the content, that is unless all those folks were on board with it too (????)

It's too bad he didn't just fess up to this a long time ago. At this point it's all the more difficult for him politically to do so; but just as we urged Romney to admit a mistake with his health care law, I think Paul would best serve himself and his fans if he would come clean.

Perhaps either way he's screwed.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 2:59PM

"It's beyond incredible to think that EVEN IF he didn't read the newsletters, that someone in his family, social or professional sphere wouldn't have alerted him to the content, that is unless all those folks were on board with it too (????)"

That is a brilliant observation and point. Thank God someone is using his brain out there.

Reason | 12.20.11 @ 2:33PM

lol - if this is the best the lame stream media can do, we are going to win this by a landslide...!

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 3:07PM

Your statement has nothing to do with reason or reality and is actually the very reason why you will lose. The MSM has not even gotten started and if you think that this is all they got or can make up, you really are going to lose. Aparently you were so busy trashing and helping that MSM media destroy the competition you did not notice what was actually going on. They have plenty of knives sharpened and ready for your Ron Paul. By the time there done with him, you and he will be wearing tin foil hats and waiting for the mothership to take you away to start your utopia on the planet Ron.

Margie| 12.20.11 @ 3:33PM

Planet Ron... ha!

Caleb Plain| 12.20.11 @ 3:34PM

The MSM didn't bring out the knives first, jealous conservatives did. Hannity, Levin, Lord, etc.

Look at the site and author of the article you are commenting on. This isn't the MSM.

You lose.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 9:39PM

No, the MSM media did bring it up, you are lying now. Yes, some conservatives did as well. Look at reality and start with Wolf Blitzer. If Paul does take the lead there will be MSM knives as there always are and if you think not you have confirmed that you are really deluded.

Keep talking you are making my case. Keep alienating the base of conservatives, dodging, manipulating, and displaying your smarminess.
Yeah, look at the site. They have slammed all the candidates not just your precious, impeccable, beyond criticism Ron Paul.

rob| 12.20.11 @ 3:32PM

So basically you have nothing on Ron Paul....lol, what was the point of this? You could have just wrote "I don't like Ron Paul" and saved everyone's time.

Ed| 12.20.11 @ 4:48PM

Actually, ace of spades has a nice video of dear leader praising Bradley Manning. Time to trot out a stale Reagan quote.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:54PM

The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Is In The Building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c

read H. Hoover's FDR papers| 12.20.11 @ 5:04PM

"For a candidate whose supporters routinely accuse George W. Bush of having lied about the Iraq War, the idea that Paul himself is repeatedly less than truthful -- with a specific accusation from a former aide -- is big trouble."

Oh JLord..
You are seriously comparing a couple lines (that Paul denied knowledge of) in an old obscure newsletter to LIES that are still being defended by Bush/neocons that resulted in 4500 American DEAD, 30,000 MAIMED, 100,000 + civilian KILLED, over $1 trillion flushed down the toilet, and the loss of goodwill around the world all so that it would end up in an inevitable failed state?

Your priorities are totally out of whack and, shows just what a crazed neocon zealot you are. Thanks for supplying the US with "big trouble" for half a century. Perhaps a "proctology" is in order for you, J.Lord, to locate your brain.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 5:06PM

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 9:53PM

I "claim to be part of the libertarian movement." How's that?

I was serving on the Libertarian National Committee way back in 1985/86. I was Ron Paul's student coordinator for his Libertarian presidential race in 1988, and also his travel aide.

Do you think I was hanging around the Libertarian Party in the 1980s for the fun of it?

Derek Leaberry| 12.20.11 @ 5:21PM

Ron Paul would seem to be lying. Even if the newsletters were ghostwritten, Paul would have read most of the content and definitely would know who wrote the newsletters. After all, Paul would have been paying the ghostwriter(more common than many would think).

Before the Internet, you young'uns, newsletters were an important source for political discourse, especially political discourse that was considered out-of-bounds by the bipartisan elite. I was not aware until very recently that Ron Paul had a newsletter yet it is not surprising. Paul had lost the 1984 Republican primary for Senate to Phil Gramm and retired from the House. Most likely, he never thought he could be elected to the national government again. Because a man has got to eat and an opinionated man who was an ex-congressman could make money by selling newsletters and buying conservative mailing lists to plow for customers, Ron Paul got into the newsletter business. In 1988, in what might have been considered an attempt at marketing, Paul ran as the Libertarian candidate for president and earned the usual 1 % typical of that party's candidates. But surely he gained recognition as a Right Libertarian among the Libertarian Party.

Had the political windstorm of 1994 had not occurred, Ron Paul would likely have been consigned to crankdom. But Bill Clinton's ugly first two years as president intervened and made Paul a congressman again. Paul was elected once again to a southeast Texas House seat similar to the one he represented ten years before.

As for Lew Rockwell, he and the brilliant but febrile Murray Rothbard wrote their own newsletter at about the same time called the Rothbard-Rockwell Report- the Triple R. I can't remember the Triple R writing about race in any vicious way. Rothbard died in early 1995 and Rockwell mothballed it two or three years later.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:48PM

Rob C| 12.20.11 @ 5:58PM

Considering that Dondero worked for Paul from 1997-2003, does it strike Mr. Lord is odd that this highly-credible source waited 8 years to contact Jeffrey Lord, via blog comment-posts, to denounce Ron Paul over these Newsletters?

Worse, does it strike Mr. Lord as odd that this highly-credible source would work for someone for a term of 6 years (1997-2003), which began AFTER these Newsletters were written? ....why, that must mean that this highly-credible source is a racist too! (Or, he at least was a racist between 1997 and five minutes ago).

...and the plot thickens.

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 10:01PM

Wrong. Ron and I were in close contact all those years (except maybe 1990?). I recruited him back into the Republican Party in 1992. Then I begged and pleaded with him to act as Honorary National Chairman of the group I ran, the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1994/95. I also headed up the Draft Ron Paul for President Exploratory Comm. in 1992 (along with other Paul aide/friend Burt Blumert.)

Note - the Newsletter deal extended from 1988 or so, all the way to 1995. And here's another bit of information that I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on yet...

The Ron Paul fundraising letters from those years were far more bombastic and controversial than the Ron Paul Newsletters. Libertarian Party folks would be outraged at Ron directly during that period over his outlandish fundraising letters.

You see, the Ron Paul for President campaign donation list, which was quite extensive from 1987/88 was morphed (by Jean McIver) into Ron Paul's overall fundraising lists. And the Libertarian Party folks got the same fundraising letters as the Spotlight, John Birch Society folks for Ron's various projects.

You can imagine how that went. Particularly on gay rights issues, abortion and such.

Rob C| 12.21.11 @ 12:49AM

First, having read the full quotes that are the subject of this "scandal" I'm not terribly scandalized. They may not have been delicately written, but they really aren't even shocking when placed in proper context. So, I'm not the one to be convinced that these letters were shocking and bombastic. And if this is just a 'shocking and bombastic' pissing-contest, Mr. Lord here is in bed with Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. The end.

Yet, whether these Newsletters are evidence of the author's racism (whomever the author was), has not been adequately proven by you or Mr. Lord.

Second, I don't know you, care about you, or have any particular reason to not like you. I do however seriously question the tactics of Neoconservative ideologues like Lord who pick and choose which categories of evidence he will acknowledge, as he makes his hyper-biased, hyper-partisan, hyper-ideolgical, and completely misleading case against a candidate he doesn't support (and one whom I happen to support). It's libelous. And given his and his colleagues' treatment of other former employees in somewhat similar positions as you (Scott Mclellan; Cain's former employees), it's totally disingenuous.

I'm sure Scott Mclellan and Herman Cain's employees wouldn't call themselves "disgruntled" either. And hey, maybe none of you are disgruntled. I don't really care. But why YOU, posting on an internet message board (and, obviously I'm not criticizing you for that) are, ipso facto, a more worthy source than Scott Mclellan, is totally beyond me. And it leads me to believe that Lord has zero interest in the truth.

He is obviously using you for his propaganda.

Eric Dondero| 12.21.11 @ 4:33AM

Dude, I'm not out to prove that Ron Paul was a "racist." Where in the hell did you get that idea?

I'll swear on a stack of Bibles. I worked closely with the man for 12 years as his personal assistant/travel aide, and never once heard him say an unkind word about Jews or Blacks for that matter.

(Honestly, there was one single incident I'm aware of that could've been seen as homophobic, but that's it.)

My beef with Ron Paul is his idiotic foreign policy views, which amount to gross appeasement to Islamo-Naziism. He pooh-poohs the threat from Iran and Ahmadinijad. He apologizes for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He believes Islamism poses no threat to Europe. He could care less about creeping Sharia and the increasing Islamization of our culture. He wants to weaken the once great United States Military even further. He despises the masculine culture of the U.S. Military, and criticizes any opponents as "warmongers."

Again, Ron Paul is a 50%-er. He's 100% right on 50% of the issues; dead wrong on the other 50% (foreign policy/national security.)

Rob C| 12.21.11 @ 10:09AM

Eric, the guy who is using YOUR statements for his propaganda (Lord) IS without a doubt, manifestly out to prove that Ron Paul is a racist with this Newsletter business. So, this not just a completely relevant point here, it's the focal point in light of Lord's last few blogs.

Obviously, I completely disagree with you (and Lord) on foreign policy. However, his last 83 blogs on Paul haven't been substantive essays on foreign policy--that I could tolerate. How I would love it if Neocons would come out and debate foreign policy like grow-ups, instead of evading, slandering, and relying on ad hominem. (In fact, I'd just prefer at this point that he debate the substance of these Newsletters and place the quotes in proper context, which he hasn't done.)

Yet, the few times Lord has even tried to debate the foreign policy, he proved that his arrogance exceeds his knowledge. He didn't debate with respect, he debated like....well, his pal Mark Levin: An pompous elitist, who thinks everyone else is unAmerican. Even then, he could not avoid numerous logical fallacies. Only he made an ass of himself in the process, and so now (because he lost the foreign policy debate) Lord has resorted to trying to show that Ron Paul is a racist. His latest tactic was to take YOUR comments on his blog, and turn them into a blog further insinuating that Paul is a racist.

YOU just proved my point and the point being made by numerous Paul supporters on these comment boards: You don't really think Paul is a racist, you just don't like his foreign policy. Great. Thank you for your honesty. But maybe you'd like to re-type that in BIG BOLD letters so that Lord can write a blog retracting this one: Where he is using YOUR comments to suggest that Paul is a racist. You could say "You're wrong, Jeffrey Lord, in attacking Paul as a racist. Please write more blogs about foreign policy."

I really hope Lord is reading this thread, with emphasis on YOUR replies to me.

Eric Dondero| 12.21.11 @ 4:35AM

These are not new allegations. I was quoted extensively in the NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, and even on NBC's Meet the Press during the 2008 election cycle on all this.

I didn't wait 8 years. All this came out in 2008.

Rob C| 12.21.11 @ 10:10AM

In other words, there is no new evidence to discuss?

You've just confirmed another point that's been regularly made by Paul supporters, here.

Rick| 12.20.11 @ 6:11PM

Lets assume everything in the Newsletters was written by Ron Paul personally.

So based on that assumption, he has never said that blacks, jews, etc should be killed, tortured, imprisoned, or sent overseas because of their race.

So the options are voting for Ron Paul who said some racist stuff and believes in freedom for all or voting for GOP candidate who doesn't believe in freedom here at home and wants to go to war in the middle east.

I can easily see how some of you don't want freedom, just want to kill some brown people (overseas of course) and keep your racist thoughts to yourself.

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 10:13PM

On final bit of information before I sign off...

We had a very huge controversy at the tail end of the 1988 Libertarian campaign for President.

Oh, boy, I'm not sure if I should go there. This may open up a huge can of worms.

Well, here it goes...

Nadia Hayes

She was Ron's former longtime Campaign Manager and Business Manager. The last day of the election in 1988, they closed down the office, locked all of us staffers in the mail room (I sh*t you not), had accountants come in, lawyers and investigators with the Nassau Bay P.D. (Clear Lake - Houston).

Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert had also flown in and surprised us all by showing up at the office.

They busted Nadia for embezlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the Libertarian Presidential campaign. She did finally end up being convicted and went to jail for I believe 6 months or so.

Well, there was much more to the story. Some surmised that Nadia may not have been the only culprit. There's much more to this story. But it was easier to pin it all on Nadia and let the rest lie.

Only a few Libertarian Party people ever asked questions.

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 10:24PM

I'll just point some enterprising young reporter in the right direction...

You must understand Nadia had complete, almost dictatorial control over ever facet of Ron's businesses (newsletters, fundraising lists, book publishing, ect...) until 1988.

Who took over those enterprises after '88?

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 6:51PM

The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Flunkie Stooges Are In The Building.

Do The Homework.

Paul| 12.20.11 @ 7:39PM

Look, I mean I support Ron Paul's platform as much as anyone else, and I've always thought he had honor, integrity and principles, etc (and Jeff Lord has always been out to get him since day one), but these are serious allegations. There is a fair amount of evidence here and I think the anti-Paul people have a point. I would like to know the whole story behind this myself because frankly I'm not sure I can support someone who's endorsed those kinds of heinous ideas.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 7:52PM

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 8:02PM

trevor| 12.20.11 @ 9:36PM

video proof Ron Paul is a racist ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMQmInReYlI&feature=g-all-u&context=G230984eFAAAAAAAAAAA

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 9:38PM

I find it amusing that I'm repeatedly described as a "disgruntled former employee," of Ron Paul. My disgruntlement extends only to my severe disagreements with my former boss over foreign policy.

Ron is superb on economics. Nobody is better on that score. And he's quite a decent individual personally. We remained friends after I left his employ. In fact, he called me two weeks afterwards and said straight out "you'll be back."

I still live 12 miles away from his home in L.J. and often run into his family members at the local Home Depot. There's no hard feelings or "disgruntlement." There is only severe, and passionate disagreement over his foreign policy views, which I consider to be grossly un-libertarian.

How can you claim to be a "libertarian," yet support appeasement with Islamists who want to force our wives/girlfriends to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe?

Couple items: I am the Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus, note merely among a group of people who founded the group; I personally witnessed Ron with the fax copies of the newsletters in the car while driving him to events, and at his Clute office late at night, after him and I would return from events; I don't switch from "Rittberg to Dondero" out of convenience - simply put Rittberg is my adoptive parents name, Dondero is bio dad's name, I choose to use both; finally, I claim fluency in 5 languages, I speak moderate level in another 5 or 6. Be more than willing for someone to challenge me on that by phone anytime - cell, 979-848-4575.

Simon Templar| 12.20.11 @ 9:48PM

Wow, is this for real? If it is, I did not know a liberatarian could speak with such insight, rationality, and intelligence. Odd. I have the same attitude about the guy, it is his supporters that I detest, at least the one's I read on this blog.

Will the real Eric Dondero stand up?

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 9:57PM

Apparently, You're Just One More Israel Firster Propaganda SquadTraitor Bastard Rittberg.

Wanna Make Somethin' Of It Punk Ass.

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 10:18PM

Clint, here's my cell 979-848-4575. Call anytime. Be glad to hash this all out over the phone.

Be also glad to meet you in person. I work all over the country - California, New England, Mid-West, Tex-Ohma. Let's meet?

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 10:28PM

You Can Find Me At The Monthly Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots Meetings And You Can Tell All Of Our Dr.Ron Paul Supporters Your Propaganda, Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Punk Ass.

Put Up Or Shut Up Punk Ass.

Eric Dondero| 12.20.11 @ 10:41PM

Would that be Pennsylvania? And what's your last name? Why do you post simply as "Clint"?

BTW, Tea Party Patriots are Pro-Defense. Why would an isolationist America-hater, Israel should be exterminated pacifist Islamist-appeassor such as yourself be hanging out with Patriots who love their country and wish to defend it?

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 11:09PM

That's A Lie.

You're A Liar, Rittberg.

Apparently, You Don't Know The Difference Between Isolationists & Non-Interventionists, Sport.

I Post As Clint, Beecause Of Zany Negative Attention Craving Misfits, Such As You, Rittberg.

Wanna Make Somethin' Of It ?

Hmmmm ?

We Hold Our General Monthly Meetings By Valley Forge At The Phoenixville Country Club The 2nd Friday of Each Month.We Meet Next On January 6th,2012 At 6:00 Pm At The Phoenixville Country Club.

Get A Map And Find Valley Forge, Asshat.

Put Up Or Shut Up, Israel Firster PropagandaGirl.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 11:13PM

That Will Be Friday The 13th.

Better Yet, Sport.

Be There.

Clint| 12.20.11 @ 11:19PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

Eric Dondero| 12.21.11 @ 4:20AM

Trade? "Free Trade"? Are you kidding me?? This is not about the ability for Israel to trade with its neighbors. This is an issue of culture. This is an issue of an outpost of Western civilization in the heart of the Middle East. A country that has topless beaches, bikinis, pizza parlors, casinos, marijuana legalization, all the booze you can drink, and some of the hottest women in the world surrounded by neighbors who force their women to wear ugly black bags over their heads, cut off their female genitalia and don't even let them drive and hardly even vote.

It's funny how you Ron Paulists always divert the main issue away from culture to side issues like "trade." My gosh!

What in the bloody hell does any of this have to do with free trade???

Clint| 12.21.11 @ 9:23AM

Hey, Israel Firster Propaganda Boy,Rittberg,We Don't Send Our American Warriors Over To The Middle East Sand Box So Your Girlfriends In Israel Can Go Topless On The Beech.

It's Funny How You Israel Firster Traitor Bastards Attempt To Get Our American Warriors To Do Israel's Fightin' For Ya.

If You're Such A Toughie Girl Israel Firster Rittberg Go Join The IDF Yourself & Stop Tryin' To Use Our American Warriors As Your Israel Firster Cannon Fodder.

Johnfrance| 12.24.11 @ 3:19PM

Steven Bandrowczak
800-937-3737

Kenneth DiPietro
866-458-4465

Eric Dondero| 12.21.11 @ 4:24AM

You are aware that there's an area of Israel, not far from Tel Aviv, that's literally just 9 miles wide.

Say Israel goes back to 1967 borders. What's to stop the Arabs from just from cutting Israel in two with one full sweep of all the Arab Armies?

1967 borders amounts to suicide for the Israelis.

And whatever happened to the concept that if one nation is invaded by another, and the nation that was invaded happens to kick the crap out of that other nation and drive them back far into their territory, that nation gets to keep a chunk of territory?

Why in the bloody hell should Israel have to give that territory back? They won it fair and square AFTER THEY WERE INVADED BY 7 OTHER NATIONS!!!

chuck| 12.21.11 @ 9:18AM

Yep, always been that way. Germany lost huge amounts of territory after WWII. The Soviet Union expanded westward, into what was Poland, and the Polish borders shifted westward as well, into what was German territory. This set off a huge migration of Germans from their homeland westward. Strange how 65 years later no one is asking Russia and Poland to switch back the borders, but Israel has to give back the territory it won in an unprovoked war.

BTW, Eric, Clint is a hopeless case. All talk, keeps posting about "stomping faces". He would love to be a brown-shirt for Paul. Don't waste your time trying to engage him.

Clint| 12.21.11 @ 9:33AM

BTW, ChuckieGirl Is a Liar Too.

Aaaaand, I Got Her Trained To Follow Me Around.

Now, Go Fetch Bibi's Bone ChuckieGirl.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Chuckie's Dress.

Clint| 12.21.11 @ 9:30AM

You're An Argument Against Yourself, Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Asshat Rittberg.

ellen| 12.20.11 @ 11:38PM

It is amazing that Ron Paul is such a squeaky clean figure that his opposition has to dig this hard to come up with "dirt"...Grow up and discuss the ideas, children. They matter.

Michael| 12.21.11 @ 1:00AM

"He does confirm that Paul associates wrote the newsletters (including Lew Rockwell, the controversial ex-Paul chief of staff) but insists Paul himself was fully involved in the approval process.

...

Jean McCiver edited them for clarity and grammar out of the Houston office on Nasa Blvd. Ron was merely a figurhead.

But he did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer."

I have a question. Who saw Dr. Paul read "every line" of those newsletters? It couldn't have been Jean because Dr. Paul needed to "re-fax them to Jean to go to the printer." This is hardly incriminating evidence.

Here's an idea: give Jean an opportunity to provide a fax receipt. That'll validate his claim.

Something that happened almost 20 years ago...Did he remember to keep his fax receipt? Does he still remember where he placed it? Did he receive the fax directly or did his secretary hand it to him? Maybe she took the receipt.

Speculation.

Bob S| 12.21.11 @ 2:20AM

Paul ain't perfect, but he stands head and shoulders above any other Repug candidate.
Deal with it.
We got a guy in office that spent 20 yrs. in the black version of a KKK church and nobody said boo.
So why all the crying now?
Because instead of a Repug personality cult candidate, we got somebody who is serious about the constitution.
And the ruling class and its media flunkies can't have that.
Cry me a river, Mr. Lord. This crocodile knows how to swim and couldn't care less.

L. Ross| 12.21.11 @ 10:42AM

Dr. Paul Supporters:

I don't have a dog in this fight. Frankly, the entire GOP lineup is a huge disappointment. That said, your rabid defense of Dr. Paul seems shortsighted.

Nothing that the AmSpec or Jeff Lord brings up about Dr. Paul can damage him. If he is the nominee, THESE ALLEGATIONS WILL BE THE ONLY THING UNDER DISCUSSION. You do understand that. No matter how much you agree with his views on putting America first and minimizing our involvement in foreign affairs, no matter how much you agree with his record in congress, no matter how much you know in your hearts that Dr. Paul is the man we need right now, if he becomes the nominee, none of that will be discussed. The liberal press will focus on these newsletters TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERY THING ELSE.

If Dr. Paul cannot win the nomination because of the slight focus that has been placed on these newsletters, NO WAY IN HELL CAN HE WIN THE ELECTION. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, yet it seems to be utterly beyond his ardent fans. Conversely, if he can win the nomination in spite of these newsletters (they are physical objects, these are not allegations like Herman Cain was faced with) he may just have what it takes to win the general election. You should not be complaining about the scrutiny, you should be celebrating it. Because however unjustified you may feel the current anal probe is, it is nothing like what lies ahead for Dr. Paul if he wins the nomination.

Red Phillips| 12.21.11 @ 12:39PM

Read what I wrote above. As I said, Paul erred in disavowing the newsletters so thoroughly to begin with. He should have appologized for arguably indelicate language and then defended the content on its merits which is easy to do when the offending quotes are read in context. We empower the PC thought police by dancing to their tune. And most shamefully, "conservatives" like Lord march in lock step with the Cultural Marxist PC Enforcers when they parrot their claims. I really don't know how Lord looks at himself in the mirror in the morning knowing that he is shilling for Cultural Marxist.

Rob C| 12.21.11 @ 12:50PM

L Ross, you're missing an important point. People who supported Paul in 2008 are fed up with the slander and libel coming from the powerful Neocon wing of the GOP. They don't discuss philosophy, because when they actually do, they either look ignorant or crazy. So they use their powerful platforms in the press to make Paul look crazy. And now that he's about to win Iowa, they try to make him look racist by bringing up a 20 year old story about a Newsletter.

They also intentionally leave out the context of these Newsletter. Look, they're actually not that bad and have a completely non-racist explanation. Someone like Lord, whose pals include Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, really isn't a good place to be lecturing others about hyperbolic and bombastic statements that have been taken out of context to make the writer look crazy/racist. If Lord had any integrity or concern for the truth, hed treat the author of the Paul Newsletter (whomever it was) with the same respect he gives Ann Coulter....who wrote an ENTIRE bombastic/sarcastic book wherein she examined on shocking racial statistics (eg, high Black incarceration rates).

I'm tired of the personality contest mentality. We're electing a president, not a prom queen. I don't think the truth and context are too much to demand of people like Jeffrey Lord.

Frankenstein Government| 12.21.11 @ 4:24PM

I spent an entire night reading, mulling over, verifying and considering this whole nasty newsletter thing. I put it here: http://thecivillibertarian.blo.....james.html

Bob| 12.22.11 @ 12:09AM

I dont think that Eric Dondero or Eric Rittberg is a reliable source.

As Eric Rittberg, he defended Ron Paul back in 1996:

"Paul's aide, Eric Rittberg, said -- as a Jew -- he was "outraged and insulted by the senseless, anti-Semitic statements Mr. Morris is making."

Scott B.| 12.22.11 @ 10:26AM

So you use a internet commentor as a source for your article? Are you even aware "Dondero" is not his real name?

Reminds me of the Michael Scott quote "Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want ... you are getting the best possible information"

I do not know how anyone would employ you as a journalist, Mr. Lord.

Johnfrance| 12.24.11 @ 3:18PM

Dondero/Rittberg????

Did you think you were actually going to get away with this.

We must start calling the spectators advertisers immediately.

I see a Lenovo banner ad. Anyone who believes this was faulty reporting, PLEASE PLEASE start calling
the lenovo executive management.

Anyone who is truly displeased let's fill their voicemail inboxes.

johnfrance| 12.24.11 @ 3:22PM

There are about 200 people right now in the RP camp reviewing all of Jeffrey Lord's reporting work available. If you a truly frustrated, please join the effort.

We are going to expose and publicize other examples of unethical journalism.

I encourage everyone to start googling.

Let's hold him to the same standard of accountability.

johnfrance| 12.24.11 @ 3:24PM

Ginger Hancock| 12.26.11 @ 9:10PM

THAT ALL YOU GOT? GET A LIFE!! YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME. --ABRAHAM LINCOLN ---- RON PAUL 2012 !!!

The American Spectator

View all comments (130) | Leave a comment