Ron Paul's old newsletters make ugly reading
Ron Paul has a well-earned reputation as a political extremist- someone who goes beyond the label "gadfly," and skates the outer edge of reason. Certainly many who have rallied to his cause- neo-Nazis, KKK types, anti-Semites,"truthers," white supremacists, America-hating Far Leftists, conspiracy theorists of various kinds, and assorted other nut jobs- are enough to scare the living daylights out of any reasonable person, and to cause one to wonder just what it is about this guy that attracts such a disreputable following.
There has been a tendency to view Paul as simply a kindly old eccentric who is as horribly naive about the people with whom he associates, and from whom he accepts support, as he is about matters of foreign policy, defense policy, and practical government. But it seems that The New Republic has come up with some old issues of his newsletter that put him in a somewhat different light.
It should be emphasized that it cannot be proven that he actually specific articles, and some of them seem to differ from his writing style. . A campaign spokesman even denies that he approved all of them. They just happen to appear in his personal newsletter- a fact for which Dr. Paul needs to be held accountable.
There has been a tendency to view Paul as simply a kindly old eccentric who is as horribly naive about the people with whom he associates, and from whom he accepts support, as he is about matters of foreign policy, defense policy, and practical government. But it seems that The New Republic has come up with some old issues of his newsletter that put him in a somewhat different light.
It should be emphasized that it cannot be proven that he actually specific articles, and some of them seem to differ from his writing style. . A campaign spokesman even denies that he approved all of them. They just happen to appear in his personal newsletter- a fact for which Dr. Paul needs to be held accountable.
Comments
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
And if McCain did indeed make this remark- which I find hard to believe- it is indeed troubling. Like to see some documentation.
If Ron Paul indeed paid for that newsletter to be published and profited from it for ten years without knowing what was in it or even who wrote it, he clearly lacks the personal responsibility necessary to be president. Or a shopkeeper. Or a cobbler.