What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.Can't hide in the age of Al Gore's Internet.
Update: Hot Air - The Problem with Paul Updated OK, commenter, Stormy Dragon thinks I am "gullible" to believe TNR's version of the Ron Paul Newsletter story.
So let's look at what Bryan at Hot Air has to say - since he had more time to research the issue.
TNR may have cut some corners, but you can't dismiss the whole newsletter thing - especially given that it was either written under his signature or had his name in the title.
But even if you weed out the marginal stuff, there’s much, much more there and it’s bad. There’s support for David Duke.That is all the "historical" or newsletter record.
There’s paranoid support for the militia movement.
There’s veiled anti-Semitism combined with rank stupidity.
The current Ron Paul also has some problems....
We have a pile of newsletters containing the more than occasional crazy. We have Paul being photographed with members of Stormfront, from whom he accepts donations. And we have Paul supporters celebrating terrorist Guy Fawkes on their big Ron Paul fundraiser day. And we have a mob of Paul supporters harassing Sean Hannity with obscenities. And despite the fact that Paul says he’s not a Truther, he has undeniably courted the Truther vote by hanging out with uber Truther Alex Jones.Stormfront, in case you aren't keeping track of these kinds of things, is a neo-Nazi group.
Bryan gets the last word.
Back to the newsletter and then I’m done. Let’s take Paul’s latest defense at face value for a second. The best that can be said about it is that he mismanaged a newsletter and turned it over to cranks who don’t represent his views. Set aside that there’s a remarkable consistency between the views expressed in the newsletters and the views many of his supporters hold now. If Paul really didn’t write the most risible material in that newsletter, and if the ghostwriters really don’t represent his views, then he isn’t even competent enough to manage a newsletter in a way that keeps out the riffraff and represents his own thinking. Paul supporters still want to turn the executive branch of the government over to someone who exhibits this level of incompetence across a stretch of years?