Ron Paul defenders: A video rebuttal from Jim Newton
Ron Paul has caused a stir with a racist newsletter from 1992. He was called on, in Wednesday’s Opinion pages, to explain how offensive comments about the L.A. riots were printed in the “Ron Paul Political Report.”
Reader Scott Reams writes in: “[W]hether he is ignored or scrutinized is not the issue in this case. The issue is that the media has known about this for the entire election cycle both in 2007 and now in 2011... but the media chooses to wait until just now to bring it up at all. How oddly silent they were before Ron Paul was polling in 1st place in Iowa. It shows that the media’s agenda is not to report the truth, but to take down the only threat there is to the corporatism that feeds their owners, and by any means necessary.” Commenter getplanted.native asks: “I would like to know how much money that LA Times and their Opinionist was paid by GOP hacks to publish this hit piece.”
In the above video reply, the editorial board’s Jim Newton says, “We were attempting to do what we do, which is to analyze candidates for president, analyze their records and hold them to account for it. That’s all this editorial was an attempt to do.”
Other readers said it’s impossible for a Libertarian to be racist, while others called into question whether the board’s editorial was racist. Here’s reader Douglas H.:
So the LA Times narrative of the ’92 riots is that blacks, rather than being lazy, are explosively violent. Without [aggressive] intervention by white institutions (National Guard, LAPD) those crazy blacks would burn down the city. It’s the white man’s burden, no?
Nice going LA Times. You managed to be even more racist than the article in “The Ron Paul Report.”
Newton speaks to those issues and also answers readers who say candidate Paul has done all of the explaining he needs to.
Feel free as always to respond -- the ambitious may wish to submit a video reply of their own via a link in comments.
--Alexandra Le Tellier