I think a more substantive argument might be made on just about any basis other than shooting the messenger. It doesn’t matter whether it was Jamie Kirchick, Bill O’Reilly, Dan Rather or Edward R. Murrow himself making these public. The eighteen newsletters spanning seventeen years, I think, speak quite loudly for themselves. Leaving aside Kirchick’s article, if only these newsletters were published, then the evidence is damning. There is certainly no innuendo there.

Ron Paul claims he didn’t write them. He doesn’t name who did, nor does he clarify what his own positions are on these matters. If one were to read his statement without seeing the newsletters, one might imagine it was a relatively isolated incident with a rogue editor. But that doesn’t make any sense. It would mean he waited seventeen years before deciding that this associate crossed the line. What line, exactly, would that have been after all that had gone out under Ron Paul’s name?

The way I see it, there is absolutely nothing ad hominem here. These are either Ron Paul’s own words, or they are words that he allowed to be published under his name. When someone “lends their name” to something, it implies some measure of endorsement. And so it is fair to look at those words under his name and draw conclusions. Just as anyone can read words under my name and draw their conclusions about me.

So if he didn’t write this, he should say who did. He hasn’t. And he didn’t bother to distance himself from these sentiments until long after they were published. For seventeen years, he allowed these screeds to go out under his name. If he’s so careless to allow repugnant material to go out under his name — if he’s not willing to protect his own good name — what kind of a man is he?

This from Doctor Paul:

Further note: the largest blood bank in San Francisco succumbed to political pressure and holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where the people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited or they are trying to poison the blood supply. There is a period of time after infection – perhaps as long as three years – when people can transmit AIDS, but their blood does not show antibodies. And it is the antibodies that the blood screening tests use to detect AIDS.

Medical doctor Paul knew full well in 1991 that blood is screened for the HIV virus, but “tests to detect AIDS” sounds scarier. He knew that the infection window is three to six months, but three years sounds scarier. He knew that blood donation is still forbidden to any man who has had sex with another man since 1977, but to hint that the largest blood bank in San Francisco is going out and seeking infected men sounds scarier.

And then Dr. Paul suggests that the gay community is trying to commit murder by poisoning the blood supply.

Not only is this man a bigot, a homophobe, and a liar, but he is also willing to accuse those he hates of murderous intent.

Thank God that he has no chance whatsoever of winning. Perhaps with his extreme and hateful positions becoming public, he will be shamed enough to shut up and go home.

(and now I’ll stop ranting)

Was there a racial underpinning to the whole event? Certainly.

But the notion that all black people are raised to hate white people and are looking for an opportunity to steal from them or harm them is a misconception based more on bigotry and bias than on any observable evidence.

During the time of the Rodney King Riots I lived in an all-black neighborhood. My neighbors went out of their way to make sure that I knew that they held no animosity towards me and that they had concern about my safety.

Although I don’t know if this has ever been proven, it was the belief of those whom I lived around that this wasn’t “our black community” but was rabble-rousers and opportunists from outside of the neighborhoods (or outside the city) who did this damage. I do know that the residents of my neighborhood met together to put out fires and formed a human chain in front of a local grocery store that was the neighborhood’s primary food source.

Nothing that I experienced while living in Pico/Fairfax remotely aligns with Dr. Paul’s (or his ghost writer’s) impression of Black America.

I was not impressed with Dr. Paul before this information was released. Now I find the notion of a Ron Paul administration to be abhorent. He does not share my vision of this nation.

And lest someone argue that these newsletters are not to be taken as Dr. Paul’s words or intentions, let us note that the newletter that accuses Dr. King of seducing children (both boys and girls) concludes with, “My wife Carol, our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family and wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. …”

Can you please provide a link to where Dr. Paul repudiates the language and the content of these inarguably homophobic rants published in his name?

Since he didn’t write the newsletters, but a staffer did, it’s not the same thing. And he’s already addressed the issue and apologized for them going out with his name.

Why do people keep acting like this is new news? This issue keeps getting “rediscovered” every 5 days. Kos had a diary on it from 8 or so months ago! This has been raised a million times now.

If there is new evidence that he himself wrote or defended those attitudes, then fine–share it. But resurrecting an old story doesn’t serve the cause of truth, at all.