Eric Dondero, a former high-level aide to Ron Paul, has taken a wrecking-ball to Paul’s presidential campaign with accusations that, if true, may leave only Paul and his sycophantic band of anarchists, conspiracy theorists and pacifists left still clinging to the rubble. It should be said at the outset that Dondero challenged Paul for his congressional seat in 2008, so certainly Paul’s side of the story should be given equal play. His campaign said Dondero “has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously.”

Dondero says that Ron Paul is much more isolationist than the candidate has been willing to admit. The staffer also claims that Paul opposed any military response to 9/11, including going after the Taliban in Afghansitan and does hold to the “truther” nonsense that 9/11 was carried out by our own government.

Most damaging is a series of claims that support the concern that many have that Paul is an anti-Semite. Dondero himself denies this, and puts all of the blame on Paul’s isolationist views, instead. Dondero, however admits two damaging things about Paul:

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs….

He strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business.

In recent days, Paul has had to fight off charges stemming from a series of newsletters which bear his name and from which he profited substantially from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. He denies writing the newletters saying “everybody knows I didn’t write them.”  The burden of proof is on Paul that he did not write or approve these stories. He should name the author and editors. Simple denial is not enough.

The primary area of concern to this point has been his over-the-top language in his criticism of welfare and crime among blacks, which some see as racism. Notice this snarky remark on the heels of the Los Angeles riots:

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

In addition, in what is believed to be a recent video of Paul speaking to a member of a “9/11 truther” group called “We Are Change”, Paul was asked “Why don’t you come out about the truth about 9/11?”

His answer:

“Because I can’t handle the controversy. I have the IMF the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with because, no, I just have more-too many things on my plate- because I just have too much to do.”

Not, “there is nothing to come out about,” but I “can’t handle the controversy”.

He certainly does have a lot of controversy to deal with.

 

22 comments
  1. Your points are  good ones.  The scariest thing for me, though, is the snippets from his newsletters in the late ’80s and ’90s, such as (from the recent Newsmax article “Ron Paul Dogged by Racism Charges):


    Among the hate-filled points made in the newsletters, which are alleged to have made Paul up to $1 million a year, were:

        •    Shooting is the best way to kill young blacks. “You should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped-off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds for example).

    Of course, as expected, Paul claims that “someone else” wrote those statements in his newsletters and that he had no knowledge of them, even though he doesn’t deny making money off them. (And we all know Bill Clinton didn’t inhale either. 😉 Paul also made some semi-racist statements about blacks that he did NOT deny making around 1996.  But just a few years later, he changed his story and said those statements did not come from him.  When questioned by CNN about this matter, Paul was very defensive and evasive, and even minimized the statements, saying that they are only considered incendiary by people like Borger, the CNN interviewer!!!  Shocking.  You can watch the footage on YouTube–the video is called “Uncut Ron Paul Interview – CNN Gloria Borger.” 

    Am I a fan of CNN?  No.  But I think they were fair in their interview.

      1. You’re welcome, David.  Thanks for bringing these points about Paul to light.  And I’m sure you’re donning your fireproof apparel.  In just a few hours, there will probably be dozens of heated comments on here!  😉

    1. Ron Paul lives in his own bubble. The key question here is why the real authors of those texts, if it is not Paul himself, are not willing to show up and take the blame. They could save their political hero a lot of trouble in the coming months.

      The eternal rumours are that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard wrote and edited those reports. Rothbard died, but Rockwell is alive and kicking. So why doesn’t he come out front and centre. Is it because he doesn’t believe in a serious chance of Ron Paul winning the nomination? Or will he only come out when the chances are serious that Paul wins the nomination and he can help remove this “blot”. Thus not responding now is then blunt political calculation?

      1.  Even if Paul didn’t write the newsletters himself, that doesn’t mean he isn’t still responsible.  If I own a store, and one of my employees says racist things to customers, will the excuse “I just didn’t know about it” fly?  Of course not.  Once you find out about the problem, you fire the employee and do everything else you can to make things right.  (And if you unknowingly make money off a racist newsletter, you donate the proceeds to charity after finding out.)  So after years and years, Ron Paul just never “knew” about the problem?  Right.  And I’m the king of Belgium.  😉 

      2. Yes, one wonders why a person who lectures so much about personal responsibility & liberty can’t seem to come clean when things really hit the fan.

  2. Nice hit piece you have here.

    Let’s roll through your fail one step at a time.

    You hype claims from a competitor of Ron Paul and say Ron Paul’s side should get fair time for rebuttal but post only once sentence. 

    You claim Ron Paul is an anti-semite yet he’s written books about his Jewish heroes.

    Let’s just skip the rest of the propaganda smear and actually quote the ex staffer.

    “Is Ron Paul a ‘racist.’ In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth,” writes Dondero, who worked for Paul since the late 1980s, serving as both a campaign operative and, from the late 1990s until 2003, as a congressional aide.

    “Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, ‘Anti-Semite.’ No slurs. No derogatory remarks,” Dondero writes.

    “He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals,” Dondero writes. “He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.”

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Peace.

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Peace.

    A vote for any other, including Obama, is a vote for endless war, assassinations, life in detention without charge, crushing debt and enough deficit spending to enslave Americans for generations.

    1. I could not find any substantive rebuttal.  All Paul did was call the former staffer “looney-tunes”.  He did not tell us his views of World War II and our entrance into the war, for example.  Can you tell us who wrote the articles in his newsletter?

      1. You probably couldn’t find a substantive rebuttal because Eric Dondero Rittberg posted his rambling rant against Dr. Paul on Christmas Day, and Dr. Paul is taking a couple of days to spend with his family. However, if you go back to 2007, you’ll find plenty — in fact, this was all brought up by Dondero during his run for Paul’s Congressional seat at that time (which he lost). Dr. Paul does not get into the slime like Mr. Dondero does; that is because Dr. Paul has some class. But read for a while, and you’ll find plenty about Eric Dondero Rittberg that should make you hesitate to quote him with regard to Dr. Paul.

      2. Thank you for your thoughts, Mary.  If you will email to me links to your claims at djshedlock at mchsi.com Ii will post them later this evening on this page (that is the quickest way to do it)

      3. Your pretending to be a journalist, is it too much to ask that you do this yourself? Dondero is a seriously disturbed person. He was fired by Ron Paul, which was part of the statement given by the campaign that you conveniently left out. He spent the next two years posting all over libertarian blogs and messages boards writing some pretty out there things regarding Ron Paul. A simple google search would have shown you much of this. 

      4. You are a reader, I gave you a link to Paul’s rebuttal. Is it too much to ask that you click it yourself?

    2. I find it interesting that you quote the favorable comments that Dondero wrote.  So you add to his credibility.  He is not a liar.  He is telling us the truth about Dr. Paul, or you would not quote him favorably.

  3. You do know that Eric Dondero was fired by Ron Paul, and also attempted to unsuccessfully to challenge Ron Paul for his congressional seat, right?

    Donderdo is also presently shilling for Rick Perry.

    No sour grapes though.  Dondero is entirely objective and accurate.

    1. I do know that, which means each party (Paul and Dondero) has an ax to grind. The one with the most crediblity is who should be believed at least in part. Unless you are prepared to say Dondero wrote the newsletters, I think his story rings more true.

      1. His story is the uncorroborated, undocumented story of a disgruntled former employee. You are a man of great faith, Shedlock.

  4. Nobody entered WW2 to ”save Jews” .  All countries entered WW2 only when they felt their own vital interests were threatened. 

  5. Mr. Dondero’s full story explains that he thinks that FDR should have declared war against Germany to save the Jews from the gas chambers.

    The problem with this view is that the USA entered WWII after Pearl Harbour in December 1941. The Nazi Conference where the “Endlösung der Judefrage” was decided was the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942.

    Paul’s view seems to be that an actual attack or landing on American soil constitutes an Act of War. Pearl Harbour was an actual attack.

    In short Roosevelt couldn’t have decided on the grounds, Dondero wants “To save the Jews”. There was no indication of Genocide and a Holocaust to weigh in 1941 as the Nazis only decided on it in 1942 and only in 1943 intelligence began to surfaced in Allied circles what was going on in the Concentration Camps. Most Jews in Europe believed they were transported to labor camps.

    The isolationist views Ron Paul has on these matters were not uncommon for FDR to weigh. As in 1939-1941 it was very popular among the members of the America First movement.

    Bottom-line: Dondero created a straw man argument that doesn’t hold after closer inspection.

  6. Thanks for approving my previous comment with the link.  I have one more “tied up” comment in moderation that has a link as well, if someone could kindly approve that one too.  The link describes how Paul has changed his story since 1996.  

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

The Rise of Donald Trump’s General Election Chances

Donald Trump’s chances of victory in November have improved dramatically over the last two weeks with national polling and a much improved electoral map.

Discussing The Future of the Iowa Straw Poll

Jamie Johnson and Shane Vander Hart discuss the future of the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on WHO Radio. Keep it as is, tweak it, or scrap it altogether?

Mike Huckabee Interview: His 2012 Decision and Christian Involvement in Politics

I spoke with former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) Thursday on behalf of…

Donald Trump Responds to Murder of Two Iowa Police Officers (Video)

Donald Trump responds to the shooting deaths of two Iowa police officers. “An attack on the police is an attack on all of us,” he said during rally.