I hesitate to bring up the Ron Paul newsletters, but I will. If someone is going to Google “Ron Paul Newsletters” I hope maybe they will find there way here to balance the attack articles from anti-Paul shills.
You knew that if Ron Paul started to rise some neocon hacks would dig back up the newsletter story. And they have although I won’t do them the favor of linking to them. I actually think Paul is somewhat to blame for his newsletter problem. The abjectness of his disavowal gave credence to the charge that they were that bad to begin with, but the quotes in question were clearly pulled out of context for shock value and when read in context are easily defensible from a conservative standpoint. Justin Raimondo does a good job of demonstrating this in this article. In fact, some of the supposedly shocking quotes happen to be true. Martin Luther King was a philanderer? Umm … well he was and this is common knowledge. Black men commit disproportionate amounts of crime? Umm … well they do and this too is common knowledge. So I guess part of the charge is that Paul spoke truth that isn’t supposed to be spoken?
What Paul should have done is apologized for what is arguably indelicate language but pointed out that the allegedly offending quotes were pulled out of context for shock value, and in context are easily defensible. That option has passed for Paul because he has essentially conceded with his disavowals the premise that they are “racist.” But it hasn’t passed for us, his defenders.