Paul Unendorsed

Jim Burroway

December 27th, 2011

Image of one of the Ron Paul's newsletters equating "Sodomy = Death." Note the following paragraph talking about Ron Paul's former membership in the Episcopal Church, written in the first person. (Click to see the entire page as a PDF from The New Republic.)

Not all Paulistas are putting their hands to their ears and shouting lalalalalalalala as loudly as possible over the incendiary racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic newsletters that went out under his name and with his active promotion for most of a decade. Andrew Sullivan endorsed Rep. Ron Paul for the GOP presidential nomination because of his economic libertarianism and his refusal to support unnecessary foreign wars. Sullivan knew about those newsletters at the time, having read about them when they first came to light in 2008. But now Sullivan said that he sat down and re-read those newsletters again and decided that their existence makes Paul ineligible for the Presidency:

It seems to me that even though I don’t believe these old screeds reflect Paul’s own beliefs, his new level of prominence demands a new level of accountability, even on issues this old. If Paul did not write these newsletters, then he has an obligation to say if he knew who did, or conduct an investigation. He has had years to do this, and hasn’t. And here’s what you’ve persuaded me of in the last few days: a person who has that kind of bigotry directly printed under his name without a clear empirical explanation of why he is innocent cannot be an honorable president of the United States. The hatred of groups of people in those letters – however gussied up by shards of legitimate arguments – is too deep and vile to be attached to a leader of the entire country. It is far too divisive. The appearance of things matters; and until Paul explains why this appears so horrible, he cannot shrug off the burden of proof.

…the words and sentiments in those newsletters cannot attach themselves – even by mere appearance – to a potential president of this country. I see that now. Maybe my admiration for Paul’s courage and his extraordinary resistance to the authoritarianism and intolerance in his own party blinded me to this. But you can’t be both the solution and the problem. And so, until Paul fully explains this incident, in the kind of way Michael Tomasky recommends, I have to say there is an alternative, as I described at length in the endorsement: Jon Huntsman. He’s what my super-ego tells me is the right choice. My id remains with Ron. But I write with the rational part of my brain, or at least I try to.


December 27th, 2011

So predictable. I could have predicted Mr. Sullivan switching to Huntsman Jr.

But, I can derail Andrew’s endorsement of Huntsman Jr. (or Romney) by reminding him the Mormon (LDS) Church still has not explained nor apologized for its racist policies in the past. Maybe Jon was too young to understand the LDS dogma back in 1960s and 1970s and it’s unfair to peg Mr. Huntsman Jr. as a racist…but his religion is unapologetic to this day about its past racist history.

Paul Douglas

December 27th, 2011

Or what about the mormon church’s involvement in Proposition 8? There should be some ‘splainin to do there as well by Huntsman as well as Newt Romney.

Ben In Oakland

December 27th, 2011

Huntsman also supports DOMA as a good law that works.

Doesn’t work for me, Mr huntsman. You’re probably light years better than Paul, but if you can support DOMA, then you are still light years away in a backwater of the universe.

Rob in San Diego

December 27th, 2011

Sorry but I choose to be one with my hands on my ears, still voting for Ron Paul over Obama. Gay liberal and proud of it!


January 2nd, 2012

Jim Burroway you’re pathetic. You are not even trying to hide the fact that you are an Obama shill. If you even spent 5 minutes looking at 1)What Ron Paul has actually said or wrote himself (verified) and 2) His voting record you would see that he is one of the few candidates besides Gary Johnson or Ralph Nader (who liberals also hate, besides the fact that he’s a true progressive) that can actually fix this country. But no, you still have Obama’s message of hope stuck up your ass. How much hope has Obama given you? Another war? Having his PR machine start gearing up for Iran, in the EXACT same way it did for Iraq? The destruction of the Constitution with the passage of the Defense Authorization Act? The fact that Obama is against gay marriage, but won’t say it so that people like you follow him like sheep to the slaughter? Wake up. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Jim Burroway

January 2nd, 2012

If you even spent 5 minutes looking at 1)What Ron Paul has actually said or wrote himself (verified)

Just today, Paul admitted to writing parts of the newsletters himself. He also claims that other people, people he won’t name wrote other parts. And he leaves us to guess which parts he wrote and which parts he didn’t write. And he leaves us to believe that he wants us to pay attention to some parts of his newsletters and not other parts. Because he today he agrees with some parts of his own newsletters but in hindsight finds “8-10 sentences of bad stuff.” Except it was way more than 8-10 sentences, which means he’s either still lying about the newsletters, or we will now have to guess which 8-10 sentences among the hundreds to chose from that consists of either anti-gay, racists, or anti-Semitic “bad stuff.”

So do you want to know what’s pathetic? It’s a man who won’t hold himself accountable to everything written in his name. A man who wants me to trust what he says except for when he doesn’t want me to trust what he says. A man who wants me to trust what is out there in his name, under his approval — after all, he was actively promoting the sale of his newsletters in 1995 and representing them as being reflective of his views — and sometimes even with his photo and over a likeness of his signature. Except for when he doesn’t.

If there’s a textbook definition of pathetic, that’s it. Paul has yet to come clean about how those passages ended up in a newsletter which, when he was actively selling them at the time he claimed he was writing and which he claimed represented his views. He now only says he didn’t write it (except for when he says he did write it), but won’t explain it any further. But what appears in those newsletters demands an explanation. A very thorough one. But he’s not giving one. Instead, he’s addressing them with the absolute minimum that he can “politically” get by with. After all, he doesn’t want to alienate the many fans who became his fans as a result of those newsletters, does he?

Everything I wrote is under my name and everything that is purported to have been written by my on this blog is mine. No one has to guess a damn thing, and unlike Paul, I will never run away from my own name. And unlike others, I will never plug fingers in my ears and scream lalalalalalalalalala as loudly as possible. And no, not even for Obama.

Timothy Kincaid

January 3rd, 2012

I must say that if Jim Burroway is an Obama shill, he’s a very clever one because he’s got me fooled. I only know the Burroway who was pretty pessimistic about Obama from the beginning, critical of his lack of leadership on DADT, and is still mocking of Obama’s “evolution” on marriage.

Finding Ron Paul to be a bit… ummm… peculiar does not make one an Obama shill.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.