Ron Paul fans read this.

[Ignatz]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Article at The New Republic which chronicles writings released under various banners bearing his name, such as "Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report... they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman... At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter."

Basically, they run the gamut from racism and sexism to conspiracy theories, Confederacy sympathizing, and outright anti-government propaganda. Much of it was written by others, but again, released under Paul's name. If you want a crystal clear picture of his real motivations, read the whole article. This stuff is so clearly damaging that Paul supporters are accusing MSNBC of forgery and fraud to try to deny it.

[xero]

I don't really care much for Ron Paul (as I've said before, I like the way he gets his message out, and I like that he's being different, but I think his message on the whole sucks), but I don't consider The New Republic to be a reliable source. I might have a couple years ago, but since then they've had a few serious issues with maintaining their journalistic integrity...to put it nicely.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that TNR would publish something like this.

Whether or not this is all actually true remains to be seen, but I really wouldn't be surprised. Paul's organization is highly ad-hoc, and Paul is known in political circles more for his tendency to supply ways for people to communicate rather than doing any communicating himself. This is why most of Paul's support consists of message boards, YouTube videos, and printed publications dedicated strictly to Paul's work.

[agi|e]

Ron Paul's answer:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/ron-paul

"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."


The timing of this story is interesting and also who is publishing it.
http://www.tnr.com

I'm still researching this story so haven't decided yet whether Ron Paul actually supported any of these racist ideas. Based on what I've read and seen so far though it seems unlikely.

[Boston]

This has already been addressed in the Fox news debate thread, to which I replied,

"It obviously isn't [true]. It's simply a politically-motivated attack article against the congressman just in time for the New Hampshire primaries, [published in a political opinion magazine]. You can read Dr. Paul's response here (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters). This isn't anything new, and has been proven as bunk here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ei=5124&en=22ee37525a9fc4f5&ex=1343016000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all) and here (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822). You can also read Dr. Paul's views on racism here (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/). He is a champion of individual liberty, which is inherently anti-racist."