A couple of Ron Paul followers have written to take exception with my statement that Dr. Paul has not disavowed the racist (and otherwise stupid) remarks in his old newsletters. They say he has…and they may be right, especially considering the last 24 hours or thereabouts. So let me amend what I said…
He has not disavowed them convincingly. I don't think most voters will buy that you put out a newsletter under your name for years and that you cashed big checks from its success and that there were unsigned writings in it that seemed to be from you…but you never read the thing or corrected in print assumptions that you'd written some of the things from which you'd want to distance yourself if you were ever, say, running for president. There are also things he's inarguably said or written that correspond closely to the in-print stuff he later said wasn't by him.
Ron Paul seems like a nice man when he speaks these days…and even folks who would never vote for him admire his consistency. That seems especially admirable in comparison to the flip-floppers at the other podiums in the G.O.P. debates, as does his refusal to speak in lockstep with them on some issues. So the narrative on Paul has become "man of principles, even if they're wrong" and he hasn't really gotten a lot of tough questions or scrutiny. You can do that before there are polls showing you with a chance of winning your party's presidential nomination. But now that he's turned from colorful contender to a guy with a shot at it, all this stuff that's been lying around for years is suddenly headline news again. Frankly, I'd like to hear him respond to more serious questioning on the ramifications of rolling back many aspects of government including many that come under the heading of "Social Safety Net." I actually agree with some of his goals in theory but would like to know more about how he thinks things would work. I get the feeling he doesn't have a lot of answers in this area.