Matt, there's a lot of good stuff on Ron. But he is bad on being a fraud. He needs to own up, and have the nads as a man, or he is down the road in my way of thinking.
Triablogue posted a link to an article not too long ago about Newt Gingrich by Thomas Sowell. The article was titled "Gingrich's Past, Our Future" and subtitled "Dwelling on the former speaker’s 'baggage' won’t help the nation’s future."Can't us Paulbots use the same line?Donsands, owning up may be the right thing to do, but it would be political suicide (granted, many would say RP doesn't have much of a political pulse to begin with). Do you really think Ron Paul saying "Yeah, I used to be a racist and big on conspiracy theories... but I've changed!" will be convincing or met with forgiveness? No. Only Paulbots would be satisfied with that sort of response. The majority would see the mere admission to having a history as a racist nut as enough to permanently disqualify him from any sort of public office, let alone President. Thus, flat out denial is the best and most practical tactic. That may sound bad, but we aren't nominating him for sainthood! :)
Can't us Paulbots use the same line?Sure.The world is the same on all sides.Christ our Lord is where we find honesty and humility and truth.
Rumor has it the article was written by Gary North (although it's more likely Lew Rockwell).
Donsands,He accepted responsibility and apologized for these letters in 2008 (and before), even though he didn't write them.What more can he own up to? He didn't write them, he apologized for his moral responsibility over them, his policies would benefit minorities greatly, he has more non-white support an any other Republican candidate, what more can he do?
"I've never read that stuff,"Why doesn't he simply say he read them, as he stated before, and say he was wrong. He is playing the game. Which, I understand, because I have played that game.It takes a lot of guts to admit the truth sometimes.If he does that, (Not like Newt does), but really humbly confess, and then all is well.
I haven't looked into the matter in any depth, but it seems possible that he hasn't read every word that the newsletter published and, therefore, that he really didn't read those remarks.
"...that he really didn't read those remarks."But, I think he said he did, didn't he? That's the problem. He looks like a fraud.
I think he read them years later. He then mistakenly took credit for them (vaguely) on the poor advice of some poor counselors.I don't believe he ever admitted to reading them before they were published, or too closely thereafter.
donsands, I agree. He should at least apologize for not taking responsibility about what was written under his name. I'm also troubled by some elements of the neo-confederacy movement that supports Ron Paul.In the final analysis, Ron Paul is the only candidate offering a real difference to Obama's rule. The rest of the candidates are merely from the Republican wing of the Statist party.