Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a comment by former Paul staffer Eric Dondero who says Paul wrote about half of it and Lew Rockwell wrote about 80% of the rest of it. Full text below the fold:
Lew Rockwell was 80% the Ghost writer for Ron Paul's Newsletters. Again, key word "Ghost writer."I'd say Ron himself authored about half the Newsletter.
He'd have a yellow pad, and every time we traveled by car, he'd break it out while I was driving and scribble on it for hours.
When we got back from Houston, he'd either giver it to his daughter Lori in Clute, or Jean McCiver in Houston. They were the only two who could interpret his hand-writing. If it was Lori, she'd fax the draft to Marc Elam at his office on Fuqua in south Houston.
Jean McCiver worked out of that office directly for Elam.
She was the one who edited and put the Newsletter together. She would gather all the various items faxed from Rockwell, and faxed from Ron to input into the word processing program.
Let me also say, that there were many times Ron and I had to drive directly to the Fuqua office to meet the deadline, to get his "yellow-pad scribblings" to Jean.
Again, while Rockwell had a very heavy hand in the writing of the Newsletter, keep in mind Ron himself wrote a great deal of it as well.
If this is all true, it certainly explains why Ron Paul has only said he didn't write any of the awful things quoted from those newsletters but hasn't said who did; it clearly undercuts his claim to be repelled by them. If those things came from Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul is so morally opposed to them, it's pretty difficult to explain his continued close relationship with Rockwell.
He certainly can't claim that he didn't know about Rockwell's views. There probably isn't anyone in the country with whom Paul is more closely aligned than Rockwell, who is his former chief of staff and for whose website Paul still writes columns. Rockwell is simply Paul's closest political ally. That makes it look even worse for him, not better.
Comments
I'm amused that noone has realized that 80% and half do not go together to make 100%.
The only way for Ron Paul to get over this (at least for me) would be to publicly apologize, and strongly and personally take a stand against those views.
Otherwise he's just a dirty old bigot.
Posted by: Robert | January 10, 2008 9:51 AM
Robert -
I think they mean that Paul wrote about 50%, and Rockwell wrote 80% of the remainder, or about 40% total. Who wrote the other 10% is unstated.
Posted by: Dave S. | January 10, 2008 9:59 AM
He's saying Paul wrote half and Rockwell wrote about 80% of the other half that was attributed to Paul, but actually ghostwritten.
Posted by: SeanH | January 10, 2008 10:02 AM
I think, from close personal observation, that Ron has emotional ties to Rockwell that transcend agreement with everything Rockwell says and does. Sometimes personal relationships trump other things. I also know that Ron has long championed Martin Luther King as one of his heroes. This does not excuse Ron for anything, but it does place some of this in a human context.
Posted by: Perry Willis | January 10, 2008 10:13 AM
It's 80% of the rest. So it comes out to 40%. And 50 and 40 together are less than 100.
Posted by: Charles | January 10, 2008 10:16 AM
"I'm amused that noone has realized that 80% and half do not go together to make 100%."
I think that it's the same as the old Yogi Berra quip "90% of the game is mental, the other half is physical." They were going for a cheap laugh (and apparently totally failed).
Posted by: kodiak | January 10, 2008 10:47 AM
This is one of those trick questions right, like Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?
If your name's on it, you wrote it and thus, by extension, are solely responsible for the content. This applies to students who buy essays from paper mills online, so why not Millionaire doctors who shill for Neo-Nazis and think they should be president?
Posted by: Keith | January 10, 2008 10:58 AM
Plausible deniability? I'm not buying it.
Posted by: EvilPoet | January 10, 2008 10:59 AM
I was not terribly impressed by Ron Paul even before these latest revelations. On the couple of extended interviews I have seen of him, there is little to be impressed about once you get beyond his rhetoric about "following the Constitution". His answers are just as vague, if not more so that the other candidates, when pressed about specifics on the policies he would introduce should be become President, and his grasp of American history seems to be woefully skewed.
It doesn't matter if Paul was squeaky clean when it came to his views on race and bigotry. He doesn't belong anywhere near the White House.
Posted by: tacitus | January 10, 2008 11:05 AM
Posted by: Eric | January 10, 2008 11:24 AM
Ooops. Forgot that less than and greater than signs would get interpreted as HTML. Let's try that again with different punctuation.
{Insert another snide comment about how Robert misread the post.}
Posted by: Eric | January 10, 2008 11:25 AM
It actually doesn't matter who wrote the articles. As presumptive publisher, Paul is responsible for all of them.
Posted by: raj | January 10, 2008 12:33 PM
Eliminate the department of education ... stupid.
Eliminate the IRS ... stupid.
Voting for Ron Paul to try to do the above ... very stupid.,
Posted by: dogmeatIB | January 10, 2008 12:36 PM
If those things came from Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul is so morally opposed to them, it's pretty difficult to explain his continued close relationship with Rockwell.
Is this the sort of thing we can expect if he becomes president?
Posted by: EvilPoet | January 10, 2008 12:41 PM
That is 80% of "half". I thought that would be pretty clear from the context. Obviously not.
Look you all. GO BACK TO THE 1996 CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN. All this came out in the Texas media. There's no mystery here. That was only 12 years ago.
Lew Rockwell owned up to it back then. He took the hit for Ron, and admitted that he had written those comments.
My Gosh. This is getting sillier by the minute.
Something that is common knowledge is now viewed as some great big "mystery." "Oh my Gosh, who wrote the Ron Paul Newsletters."
You all, ASK ANYONE who has worked for Ron Paul for the last few years. EVERYONE will tell you it was Rockwell, and that Ron had a major role in the editing and writing of the newsletter as well.
Posted by: Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008 1:01 PM
*Yawn* So is the glass half-empty or half-full of bullshit?
Ron Paul could not be more finished if he placed first at the KKK track meet.
Posted by: Kristine | January 10, 2008 1:56 PM
They have track meets?
Posted by: Dave S. | January 10, 2008 2:00 PM
Didn't Dondero work with Ron Paul when he went back to Congress in 1996. And weren't all the quotes in the New Republic article from the 80's, and early 90's? I know the LA Riots were in 1992.
I could be wrong on this, so please, if someone has more specific knowledge of the dates, please correct me. But it seems to me that Dondero, couldn't possibly know who was writing the newsletters in question.
And if Dondero was aware of these newsletters that were supposedly being written by Dr. Paul while Dondero was driving him around, then why did Dondero work for him?
Posted by: John Campbell | January 10, 2008 2:00 PM
So why didn't Paul fire Rockwell at the time if he thought his views were so abominable? It's not as though it was a one off thing, and the record shows that Paul was aware of what was being put into his newsletters.
The only silly thing about this affair is that so many people consider Ron Paul as viable presidential material.
Posted by: tacitus | January 10, 2008 2:08 PM
The value of this commentary is that it possibly sheds light on the process. Elam, McCiver, and Rockwell should all be asked what they knew. I don't know who Elam or McCiver are (or whether they're still alive) -- but some intrepid reporter could use them as sources.
But I'd be cautious about my sources. I notice that this is mere testimony, without documentation. And...
Eric Dondero Rittburg has made it his personal career to be Ron Paul's nemesis. He was fired from Paul's staff. He's running in the Republican primary against Paul. Friends of mine who "knew him when" can't believe it took so long to fire him. He presently supports Guiliani and endorsed the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004.
Worst of all, Dondero supports the mass murder of innocent people based on geography. In October, 2005, the late Harry Browne, from his hospital bed, debated Dondero about the War in Iraq. In this interview he accused Bush of being a "being something of a war wimp" for not "bombing the hell out of Fallujah." He also said he didn't care what Bush lied about to "get us in there [Iraq]." He accused Bush of letting Jordan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia off the hook and suggested that they should be attacked if they had any "terrorists" in their countries. With great volume he asserted Iraq "had something to do with it" -- "it" being 9/11. And he advocated dropping a nuclear bomb on Mecca.
The level of evidence on Ron Paul's involvement needs to come from elsewhere -- at least for me.
Posted by: Jim Babka | January 10, 2008 2:30 PM
Never mind where the 80-50 split falls, I just like how the defense is that
"Ron Paul wrote all kinds of horrifying, racist things"
Should in fact be
"Ron Paul lent his name, status and newsletter distribution channel to horrifying, racist things written by someone else"
And this is supposed to be an improvement.
Posted by: Coin | January 10, 2008 2:33 PM
No, it's really not. To those who are already against Paul (and to plenty who are not), it doesn't make a bit of difference. Racism, whether you authored it personally or lent your name to it, is the kiss of death. Ron Paul might as well have sold crack to an eight year old.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 10, 2008 2:48 PM
No, it's really not. To those who are already against Paul (and to plenty who are not), it doesn't make a bit of difference.
But what gets me is, there are some Ron Paul supporters who seem to think it would make a difference to people. Why? What reasoning leads them to expect this argument will be effective?
Posted by: Coin | January 10, 2008 3:43 PM
I honestly don't know, Coin. I think it's just an attempt at damage control-- it seems to be the same route Paul himself has gone, and it's not fooling anyone. That's almost more disappointing than the comments themselves.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 10, 2008 3:54 PM
Coin,
People who support Paul want to defend him because of all the good things he stands for (and will clutch at any straw), in the face of a guy like McCain who wants us to wage a 100 year war in the Middle East.
It's all very sad. No matter how I look at this election and the people running in it, I see reasons for sadness everywhere.
Posted by: Perry Willis | January 10, 2008 4:29 PM
Regarding Damage Control...
Gretchen, I think this goes deeper. First, I think it's unavoidable that this says something about Ron. But the specific thing that it says can vary. Is he a racist? I, personally, don't think so. Is he lazy? Is he a bad judge of character? Is he a bad manager? Is he loyal to a fault? Those are less serious crimes, though obviously they have bearing on consideration of a candidate for POTUS.
But second, and more personally speaking, I want this problem rooted out. I think it reflects on all of us who believe that individuals have inherent rights and that freedom is important. That message is called libertarian. And it's hard enough to sell our ideas in a land where people believe in a fairy tale -- like that the government is an agency of compassion and that it has every right to meddle in our affairs, steal our property, and even kill people to advance its goals.
The official campaign statement said that Ron Paul took "moral responsibility" for his lack of oversight. If someone broke my window and took moral responsibility, there would still be consequences -- starting with hiring a glazier. The campaign's statement is insufficient in this instance.
I don't want mere acceptance of moral responsibility, I want projection of public accountability.
So, yes it does matter who wrote this stuff.
And, as someone who believes in the message that Ron Paul's campaign has promoted, I want it abundantly clear that these racist quotations don't speak for me. Ron Paul, and his campaign advisers, should want to make the very same thing clear.
Posted by: Jim Babka | January 10, 2008 4:30 PM
They have track meets?
Ron Paul could not be more finished if he baked himself in a Nazi pie.
Okay, Dave...
Posted by: Kristine | January 10, 2008 5:35 PM
Nazis have pie?
Posted by: tacitus | January 10, 2008 5:49 PM
Vanilla cream only. No chocolate.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 10, 2008 5:58 PM
Libertarian? What does it mean any more?
Ron Paul is a anti-choice libertarian. Weird enough. Then he hangs out with people like Lew Rockwell that hang out with people that think HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Racist or whatever this guy and the people who like him are the stupidest lowest common denominater in America. Next to them even I am smart and George Bush also.
Personal freedom, fine but get rid of IRS? Government spending on research? Education? Bring in the Taliban they would do a better job then these "libertarians".
Posted by: Adele | January 10, 2008 6:00 PM
To Jim Babka,
Well said.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 10, 2008 6:15 PM
Adele,
I can understand that you may disagree, but how familiar are you with the underlying arguments and real and varied positions of libertarians on things like taxes, research, or education? And isn't the Taliban thing a bit of hyperbole? I'm not trying to pick a fight or even an argument. Really. I just like to see a reasoned, informed discussion of things rather than bumper sticker put downs. I mean, you're posting your comment on a blog written by a libertarian. Do you really think Ed is a stupid guy?
Posted by: Perry Willis | January 10, 2008 6:28 PM
The fact that all of you here, have no idea who Jean McIver, and Marc Elam are, shows your utter and complete ignorance of Ron Paul and his operation.
So, it tells me, that every one of you is talking out of your asses when it comes to this subject.
I can understand McCiver, but Elam? My gosh, Marc Elam has been Ron Paul's Campaign Manager for over 2 decades. How could anyone who claims to be a "Ron Paul person" not know who he is?
And Jim Babka is a lying sack of shit in saying that I was "fired" by Ron Paul. That is completely and utterly untrue. There is absolutely no basis of fact in it whatsoever. It was something made up by a guy named Paul Frankel, alias Disinter, alias Paulie Cannoli. It's been repeated so many times by Anti-War Libertarians, that some people believe it to be fact.
If you think that I was "fired" by Ron Paul simply ask him yourself.
Or, call 202-225-2831 and ask to speak to Ron's longtime Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo. Ask Tom, if "Eric was fired." Tom will set you straight.
Can't get a hold of Tom, ask Ron's LD Norm Singleton. Same number. Norm's easy to get a hold of, and you can leave a voice mail for him. He almost always returns phone calls.
Again, that number is 202-225-2831.
Posted by: Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008 7:06 PM
In 1987/88 I served as Ron Paul's Personal Travel Aide in his Libertarian Presidential race. Ron and I campaigned in over 40 states, including Alaska.
I worked for him briefly again in 1992 when he was plannin to run for President.
I started working again for him in early 1995, when he was exploring the Congressional run, and worked for him through early 2004, first on Campaign Staff, and then from 1997-2004 as his Senior District Aide and Governmental Relations Director.
Posted by: Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008 7:08 PM
To answer your other questions on Rockwell, ironically, Ron did sort of "fire" Lew for a period in 1996. At least from the Campaign. There was a period there when we were running against Democrat Lefty Morris, a very tough race, where Lew was completely banned from having anything to do with the Campaign itself. Ron was super pissed off at him for a few months, after Morris exposed all the Anti-Semite stuff and the now famous "young blacks are fleet-footed" comment.
But Ron wasn't pissed off at him so much for making the comments, but more so, for being so stupid to allow them to be obtained by the Houston and Austin media, and Democrat operatives.
After Ron won election, by 1997, Lew started easing his way back into the campaign/Congressional aparatus.
Posted by: Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008 7:12 PM
Why put your name to a newsletter if you're not going to take the time (for whatever reason) to read what is in it? Paul has committed himself to tasks (medical school, running for office) that take a lot more time and effort than reading a montly newsletter.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 10, 2008 9:39 PM
Daniel, that's no excuse. If something's going out under your name, you should know what's being said in your name. That is if you care at all about your "good" name.
There's only two conclusions to be had about this really:
1. Paul does indeed endorse those views but knows they're currently unpopular enough to be the kiss of death for his campaign now so that he's denying it which makes him a liar as well as a racist. I've got to say this is the impression I get.
2. He had no idea what was being said with his name and hence his endorsement. Even if he is this innocent little lamb, this is the guy you're trusting to run the country?
Either way, how can anyone possibly still back him for president even with anything that is honestly good about him? It is very scary and cult-like at this point. Very disturbing. One does have to wonder how many Nazi's started out like this. Hitler is just trying to save our economy. I don't like what he says about Jews but, overall, he'd be good for Germany.
Posted by: Donna | January 11, 2008 11:31 AM
Donna, perhaps this letter will clarify things a bit.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 11, 2008 11:35 AM
"[The KKK has] track meets?"
Basically, except it involves running through the woods with bloodhounds, and instead of handing out ribbons at the end, there's a lynching.
Posted by: Jim Treacher | January 11, 2008 3:49 PM
Notice, Mr. Dondero skips right past the most damning charge -- that he "supports the mass murder of innocent people based on geography" -- to call me a liar.
And what pray-tell is so important that he had to resort to hyberbolic, profanity laced ad hominem?
I said he was fired from a job.
He says I have no substantiation.
Well, check out David Weigel of Reason and his interview with Ron Paul. Note the fourth question of this interview and resulting answer and remember it's his former boss giving the answer.
I don't understand what the big deal is about getting fired. People get fired all the time. It's not that big a deal -- especially in the world of politics. I've been fired from three jobs in my life, and in all three cases it was a positive experience that led to better things.
I'm even on friendly speaking terms with one of the former bosses who fired me. If I called him, or he called me, right now, we'd do each other a favor without hesitation. And one of the others can't even look me in the eye. I ran into that former boss this past summer. But that's his problem.
But I haven't made a life out of proving how bad they are just because of it.
And I would be ashamed of calling for the indiscriminant death of untold thousands of people just because of the bad actions of a very few.
Now Ed, you can see Eric Dondero Rittberg's obsession, and why I don't fully trust him as a source on "all things Ron Paul."
Posted by: Jim Babka | January 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Donna, I think you misunderstood Daniel - he's agreeing with you. Other than that, your comment is spot-on.
I used to give Ron Paul supporters a little benefit of the doubt, not so long ago. But this thread is just another example of how impervious to rationality (or maybe sometimes lacking in honesty) that group is, at least on the subject of their dear leader.
Posted by: MPW | January 12, 2008 3:24 PM
"I also know that Ron has long championed Martin Luther King as one of his heroes."
Has he?
Or has he just exploited and misrepresented Reverend King's "I have a dream" speech to justify his own opposition to affirmative action?
Because if King really is one of his heroes it must be hell of a personal connection to Rockwell that prevents Paul from repudiating published claims that King was a pedophile.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 12, 2008 5:34 PM
"If those things came from Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul is so morally opposed to them, it's pretty difficult to explain his continued close relationship with Rockwell.
Is this the sort of thing we can expect if he becomes president?"
"President Paul said he personally disapproves of Secretary of the Interior Rockwell's plans to allow individual states to re-introduce slavery but he not only feels that the Federal government has no power to intervene here but he also has a strong personal relationship with Secretary Rockwell which he doesn't want to endanger.
In other news, President Paul expressed regret at the first sentences of death by stone carried out under South Carolina's controversial new anti-sodomy legislation but insisted he was unable to interfere. "
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 12, 2008 5:38 PM
amazing how many of you pansies get your knickers all in a twist when a candidate starts talking about the principles this country was founded upon.
at the heart of it, you're not upset over ron paul or who he is. you're shit-scared that if he's elected, you'll have to deal with the frightening concept of personal responsibility and not having a government that will coddle your weak, soft asses.
Posted by: bob | January 17, 2008 2:23 PM
"The only way for Ron Paul to get over this (at least for me) would be to publicly apologize, and strongly and personally take a stand against those views.
Otherwise he's just a dirty old bigot.
Posted by: Robert "
I'll make sure Ron gets the message. I hear he's overwhelmingly concerned about getting the support of weak-kneed dull-eyed nancy-boys who wouldn't know what a pair of balls look like if they crawled up their thighs and burrowed into the space where their own balls SHOULD be.
Posted by: bobber | January 17, 2008 2:26 PM
"amazing how many of you pansies get your knickers in a twist when a candidate starts talking about the principles this country was founded upon."
Many of us here (oh, excuse me, many of us "pansies" here) have our "knickers in a twist" not because Paul is "talking about the principles this country was founded upon," but because he published a newsletter that contained some pretty blatantly racist writings.
"I'll make sure Ron gets the message. I hear he's overwhelmingly concerned about getting the support of weak-kneed dull-eyed nancy-boys..."
"Bobber," did you even "the message" your above quote is supposedly responding to? "Robert" only said that Ron Paul would "get over this" if he publicly apologized and repudiated the racist writings included in his newsletter. "Robert" never made any mention of Paul getting his "support," if the latter made such an apology and repudiation. Or did you just get an F in Reading Comprehension?
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 17, 2008 10:10 PM
"amazing how many of you pansies get your knickers all in a twist when a candidate starts talking about the principles this country was founded upon.
at the heart of it, you're not upset over ron paul or who he is. you're shit-scared that if he's elected, you'll have to deal with the frightening concept of personal responsibility and not having a government that will coddle your weak, soft asses."
As a non-American I'm not in the least frightened by the ridiculously remove possibility of Ron Paul being elected President.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 18, 2008 1:53 AM
Anyone else notice Bob's obsession with pansies/nancy-boys and their, weak soft asses?
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 18, 2008 1:55 AM
I did a careful read of the articles in their entirety and they are not racist at all. They are infused with the political bigotry of the freedom movement that sees people who are against freedom as "thugs" and criminals as "animals", etc., but the only racism to be found is in the hyper-sensitive souls of our socialist sheep who read sharp pro-individualism language and then bleat in protest.
Posted by: Dave in Alaska | January 21, 2008 4:16 PM
No, of course not. They just vomit forth the opinion that blacks are violent, stupid animals--how could anyone possibly mistake that for racism?
Posted by: Skemono | January 21, 2008 4:46 PM
Justin Raimondo has written a good article about these newsletters.
When the published comments are seen in context, they are consistent with Ron Paul as his long-time admirers know him. He was trained as a physician and brings a breath of fresh air into the presidential campaigns. About time someone told the truth about our foreign policy in a forum where people might actually hear it. No wonder so many are offended.
See this link:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102http://anomalynews.com/2008/01/18/takis-top-drawer-why-the-beltway-libertarians-are-trying-to-smear-ron-paul/
Posted by: Ola in Houston | January 23, 2008 12:54 PM