To be fair this issue has popped up before... He addressed it when it happened. He addressed it when he was running for congress. He addressed it earlier in the campaign.

I understand, but disagree with, your criticism that he had no excuse for not being aware of it. You gave me access post on your site. If I wrote something similarly horrible, I think your readers would expect you to take responsibility for giving me the ability to blog here, but they shouldn't expect you to take responsibility for my words.

Jason, I think that the newsletter was more than "put out in his name" as you wrote above. That implies that he wasn't involved in the thing beyond lending his name to it. He wrote for it himself. At the bottom of that link, Ron Paul says, "My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing..." So we know that he wrote at least parts of the newsletter himself. How much? Well, I don't think he's ever going to be straight about that. And after reading the newsletter, I don't blame him. It's pretty damning, any way you spin it. And yes, it's against the libertarian ideals. Like I said on my blog recently, I like some of what Ron Paul says, but so much of it is eclipsed by all the other crazy things he says. It's too bad, because he says some things that need to be addressed.

Cal, if you posted something racist on this site and if it wasn't retracted or removed from the site, I would blame both you and Jason for it. They may be your words, but this blog has Jason's name all over it. I'm not talking about commenting, because comments are open to everyone and (as far as I know) unmoderated. So Jason isn't responsible for, say, my comments. But you've been given the keys to the house, so to speak. Whenever you post something that is as reprehensible as racism (for example), Jason does have a responsibility to either delete your post or post something disagreeing with your post. If he did neither, I would think he agrees with you - so yes, I would hold him responsible.

I would agree with what Prudie says as far as a racist post here. The responsibility would ultimately fall on me because the site bears my name. Even comments to some respect.

I think Paul definitely deserves to be criticized and questioned as to his awareness of what was being said in the newsletters bearing his name. If the cited instances had taken place over a brief period, then it would be understandable that Paul may not have seen them.

But they weren't concentrated over a short time, these kinds of comments continued in Paul's newsletters over a period of YEARS. And Paul does not seem to have taken any actions during those years to rectify the matter.

Which either means that he was unusually ignorant of newsletters he'd blessed with his own name for years at a time, letting writers run rampant without any scrutiny from Paul himself, or that he willfully turned a blind eye to their content.

Neither strikes me as terribly Presidential or respectable.

Let's make a distinction here, the comments -- at least the ones that I read about in TNR -- are certainly racially insensitive, but they do not come across to me as racist.

Racist, meaning that a person's qualities are tied to his race and that one can and should be judged superior to another based on it.

I doubt that there was anything in those newsletters that hinted or even suggested it.

Having read quite a few of Ron Paul's essays over the years, it does seem pretty clear to me that those articles were not written by him.

Nonetheless, that's what happens in politics. You have to be careful with whom you associate. Now you see why other mainstream candidates seem so hollow.

Will the rehashing of this old story affect libertarianism in a significant way? Nah, we libertarians are still part of the long tail. Most people still have no clue what the word libertarian means, much less who Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Ed Crane, or Robert Poole are.

As an aside, even though I do think of myself as a CATO/Reason libertarian, the LRC crowd does have something important to say about Lincoln. The Lincoln bubble really needs to be popped. ( That Lincoln was a rotten bastard does not mean that I hold the Confederacy in high regard, despite our culture's requirement that you choose one side or the other as being morally pure.)

BTR

I believe he and his campaign have addressed this issue, as I knew of it a long time ago. It just wasn't put on the drudge report lol.

I like this Paul quote:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.... The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims... Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. -Ron Paul

and ditto on popping the Lincoln bubble!

Let's make a distinction here, the comments -- at least the ones that I read about in TNR -- are certainly racially insensitive, but they do not come across to me as racist.

The use of racist here is consistent with the definition of racism:

rac·ism Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Having read quite a few of Ron Paul's essays over the years, it does seem pretty clear to me that those articles were not written by him.

I would agree with that, but again the newsletter was published under his name over a prolonged period of time, as Loren said above.

I've given it some thought this morning and over the years this newsletter(s) was (were) written, I don't know how he could not know what was being written. The argument can be made that his silence was consent.

Some names have been tossed out as to who wrote them, but it is still unclear.

The Lincoln bubble really needs to be popped.

I don't disagree with that. But I would like to see Southerners acknowledge the fact that slavery was the main cause of the Civil War. It was the main reason Georgia left the Union.

I don't want to turn this into a debate over something that happened more than 160 years ago, but Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises do libertarians and Austrian economics no favors by focusing on these events.

Petty, I love you. You know that, but copying an issue statement from Paul's website is not a very good response to this.

I figured I better write something about this before I get accused of purposely trying to avoid it.

Accused by who? Not Libertarians, nor Constitutionalist. Maybe to the neo-cons that support such hit pieces (because they're threatened by Freedom). But, that is a part of you I have a hard time understanding. Jason, I love you man, but I wish you didn't feel the need to pacify these people that are selling out our country. Have a beer with them, befriend them and try to teach them. But you don't have to play along with their underhanded political propaganda games.

Why shoot the messenger, Daniel? I've seen nothing but blame shifted to The New Republic. Why can't Ron Paul's supporters just admit that he screwed up?

I see the potential damage that this could cause the libertarian movement. From what I've read over the last 24 hours is that this is not the first time it has come up and someone who has presidential aspirations is a damn fool for not addressing this sooner.

There is no excuse for it, Daniel and there is no defending it.

Why shoot the messenger, Daniel?

The intent of The New Republic was not to inform but to cause timely damage to a perceived threat.

someone who has presidential aspirations is a damn fool for not addressing this sooner.

In just about every critical interview he has had that I've seen since returning to congress, this issue has been brought up and answered. TNR releases it on the day of an important primary like it was newly discovered; preemted and followed by a full court press by all talk radio, neo-conservative and socialist blogs as well as Fox News.

Why can't Ron Paul's supporters just admit that he screwed up?

He screwed up. Not for not addressing it, which he had, but for having newsletters with his name on them being published without him being the controlling editor. However, he has taken responsibility and apologized for it (a long time ago... and repetitively since).

Now maybe people will read some of the things he has actually written and believes. Let me know when TNR publishes that report.

Oh, I left the most important part out:
I see the potential damage that this could cause the libertarian movement.
This is also TNR and the others intent, which is why I questioned the direction of your condemnation.

All this is, Daniel, is blame shifting. It was bound to come out in public, he should have been more prepared.

And like I said before, some doubt is in my mind as to why this went on for so long and he did nothing about it. Like I said, the argument can be made that his silence was consent.

Then that is the question that needs to be asked, if it hadn't already. "Did you know what was being written in your newsletters and was it consentual?" TNR could have just asked and/or researched that also... Which is why I question their intent.