Former Ron Paul secretary/supporter: Newsletters were “under his name…always got to see final product… He would proof it.”

NOTE: When I say, “Let’s stipulate” here, it’s for the sake of argument. This particular post is not about whether I think Ron Paul is a racist or isn’t a racist. Thank you.

****

Okay, before we get a flurry of angry comments, let’s stipulate that Ron Paul isn’t a racist. But can we stipulate this, too? The fact that he’d allow newsletters with racist content to go out under his name, with his approval, doesn’t speak well for him.

Neither does the rest of the information provided by Talking Points Memo:

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 would he do such a thing if he wasn’t necessarily advocating what was in them? “To help the business.” In addition, “the story was that Paul was out to expand the libertarian base by going after the simmering white supremacist/militia/survivalist community.”

So although Ron Paul may not have believed what was written, he didn’t object to reaping the benefits of sharing their offensive messages. He approved the material because it appealed to his base (emphasis on “base”), and these were people he wanted to attract.

base/bās/

Adjective:

Paul devotees don’t want to believe he’s racist, nor would I if I were them.

But the explanation for why the offensive stuff was in those newsletters found in the Post and Reason — that it was some kind of ploy to squeeze support from the rubes on the newsletter subscription list — might give Paul supporters pause if it became known. Paul has made his name on being the non-politician and the honest man in the race. The Post and Reason’s reporting on the cynicism behind his newsletters challenges that reputation.

He’s Ron Paul and he apparently approves that message.