[incindiary]

Some of the comments and attitudes on this thread are unbelievable and disgusting to me. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see that this is a total smear job - perfectly timed to do the most political damage.

I would've thought that people who are more informed about politics than the average person (I'm talking about freepers) would know that this story is old, old, old, rehashed BS. They have nothing on Paul personally, because unlike most politicians, he is a good man, so they have to once again trot out this old piece of garbage written by someone else that has already been refuted.

For anyone who thinks that he wrote it or approve of it, I'm going to copy and paste what someone on another forum said:

He didn't allow it, even tacitly. The newsletter was published independently of him, though it did carry his name. He didn't write it, he didn't approve it, he didn't have anything to do with it.

He did, however, take moral responsibility for the stories due to the fact that they were published on a newsletter bearing his name. He obviously doesn't believe the things in it, and certainly is no racist.

And from the link that the OP posted, a comment about the author of this smear piece:

Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.

The cheering in this thread for a dishonest, leftist politicial character assasin makes my stomach turn. I didn't read the whole thread, but I know not everyone stooped to that level, so thank you to those of you who can think for yourselves and not be a part of smearing someone for political reasons.

[mnehring]

Here is the problem, and something Reason magazine pointed out. Sure, Paul denounced and has denounced the newsletters as being out of control and these specific things being written by someone else, but at the same time, the campaign is also quick to go back to other old newsletters and find comments favorable to Paul to prove his consistency on issues.

They basically denounce what makes him look bad in the newsletters and use what makes him look good.

[highball]

He didn't allow it, even tacitly. The newsletter was published independently of him, though it did carry his name. He didn't write it, he didn't approve it, he didn't have anything to do with it.

So why did he allow it to carry his name? Why not sue the scumbags out of business? Even public officials have some right to protect their names.

By not taking legal action to separate himself from the newsletter bearing his name, he was tacitly allowing it. This is deeply disappointing.

[Proud2BeRight]

You’re joking? 12-13 years of newsletter production under his name and that’s how you explain it? This is beyond all belief.

[Lovebloggers]

Are you kidding me right now?

Poor Ron Paul. Never pursued legal action against these anonymous souls who used his name in such a disgusting manner.

Uh-huh.

[FReepapalooza]

“thank you to those of you who can think for yourselves”

Thank you, for saying that. I would much rather use my own brain than even read the outright “hate” exuding from this thread. I almost thought I clicked on a Dummies Funnies thread.

[Harrius Magnus]

It is shocking. Not only are a substantial portion of Freepers imbued with the premises of Liberalism, they feel haughty enough to demonstrate the rank tools of Liberalism. It is all to service an end, rather than coming forth from the well of principles (which used to be a good starting point on how to define a conservative). If it weren’t so nauseating, it would make you feel kind of lonely...