Of COURSE Ron Paul’s recent speeches and statements won’t reflect these same ideas! He’s running for president, you morons! Do you really think his advisors are going to allow him to get on CNN and rant about Blacks, Jews and gays? They’ll tell him to avoid the latter and fully support the former. In fact, he won’t even need advisors to figure that out!

What these newsletters tell me is that I’ve been right about my suspicions all along. Ron Paul has an agenda. He wants to see Federal protections disolved so states that want to return to their Jim-Crowe era discrimination and gay-bashing ways can legally do so. Sadly, the less intelligent among us have fallen for this, hook, line, and sinker. And they WON’T be swayed by any evidence to the contrary…no matter how damning it may be.

Anyway, if you are interested in the truth:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

http://rapidshare.com/files/82351348/rp_pdfs.zip.html
(zipped collection of pdfs)

Jamie Kirchick: “I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical”
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson’s show to announce–with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan–that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day–which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.

I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my “Ron Paul 2008″ button, he snickered and said, “Oh, Ron Paul… I’ve been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy’s written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!”

I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
——————————————————————————-
Hi Berin,

Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp

Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]

Best,
Jamie
——————————————————————————-
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: “Patience, my friend :-)”

Patience, indeed.

Volokh Conspiracy’s Dale Carpenter concurs with you, as do I. Even if you give Paul the benefit of the doubt here, by accepting the least odious possible explanation for this mess, that still doesn’t speak well of his fitness to lead the country.

That said, I am reminded of my reaction to the Motoons incident in Denmark. I found it disheartening that a motley crew of religion-mocking leftist cartoonists at an obscure newspaper had become the de facto standardbearers for the defense of free speech, simply for the lack of anyone else willing to take up the cause.

Likewise, it’s equally disheartening today that someone who evidently doesn’t mind being associated with flaming bigots (whether or not he is one himself) is now the de facto standardbearer for more liberty and less elective war, again simply for the lack of anyone else in the GOP willing to claim the mantle.

how could Paul let all of this go on for so long under his name? – jg

Its a good question, and there is no excuse.

Andrew Sullivan gets it right:

“It’s up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past.”

My take: Ron Paul is not a racist. He did not write this stuff. He was asleep at the switch. He has in the past taken responsibility for letting this crap go out under his name, which is still inexcusable.

He is and was not going to be President regardless of this story. Nor was he going to be nominated. I was supporting him because he has applied a much needed “peace and freedom” libertarian cattle prod up the GOP posterior, and I am happy to send him a little more juice in that effort.

But it is amusing to see those who pilloried TNR for failing to vett Scott Beauchamp and Stephen Glass are so uncritically accepting Kirchick’s piece now.

While none of this invalidates the message behind the Paul campaign, it does invalidate the man himself. What ever the reasons behind these newsletters, he’s clearly not someone we want in the oval office. If Paul supporters want Paul’s message to win, they’re going to have to find someone new to carry it forward.

Maybe this will all be a boon to the Libertarian party.

If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.

The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.

Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family’s safety.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

His explanations seems valid–as a famous anti-establishment figure, he allowed newsletters under his name that ended up with writers who spewed some utter crap, completely against Paul’s own beliefs and message. Paul has addressed this in his Congressional race, and taken moral responsibility for allowing it to happen under his name. You should post his response from his website.

That being said, undoubtedly this a blow to his presidential campaign. Many will not believe, and others who do believe will not want to bother will all the smearing that will come from this. I will continue to support his message, and will almost certainly vote for him, but I understand that others might not. I guess that’s the price Paul pays for being too lose with his anti-establishment name…even though I’m fairly confident he believes nothing of this sort. He has too many powerful and connected enemies who will punch this into the mainstream.

I also noted that it doesn’t read like Paul at all. From everything I’ve ever seen that he’s written and any speaking appearance I’ve ever watched he doesn’t talk like that, message notwithstanding.

That said, this’ll kill any hope he has of attracting new votes.