Looks like the earliest one shown at the link posted was April 1978, the last that was copied was from 1993. Since there aren't any copies or partials since that date, let's call it 15 years.
Not exactly 20 years, now is it. You should actually read the one from April 1978. Not much racist in that one. Same with the other two in that section. They're anti-government, anti-neocon sentiment, which is why they're listed. The alleged "racist" newsletters were put out while he was not in office. Not nearly continually over a +/- 20 year period.
And indeed - where has the press been with regard to this stuff? The Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News have done a couple of pieces, but nothing that got much traction.
Usually when there's no traction, it's because there's nothing there.
What difference does that make? Well, you asked, "Has
ANY other congressman or senator..." and I answered. It makes a difference in that Paul had left politics and was practicing medicine full time. The chances of him being an active participant, or even being fully aware of what was in the newsletters at the time of their publishing is rather low, considering how most newsletters are created. There is an entire ghostwriting industry dedicated to political and other "cause" newsletters. Are you not aware of that?
Herman Cain was gratuitously accused of doing the messaround while not in public office, but he sure didn't get any sort of break on that.
No, he didn't, and Paul isn't getting a break of his gratuitous accusations, either. But the difference is how badly Cain responded. He waffled, lied, tried to obfuscate, and changed his stories daily, and was called on it at every turn. His initial response was, "I'm not going to talk about it," and then proceeded to talk about nothing else for a week. Paul has answered the accusations directly, and has answered them absolutely consistently every time he has been asked about them, now and in the past. There are no inconsistencies in his answers, has no history of lying or obscuring the truth, and his actual record on racial issue indicates he's telling the truth.
But apparently the only acceptable answer he can give is, "OK, you got me. I'm a racist jerkwad. Now what?" <snort>
A lot of them are partials, but at least it's a start. They show what was being published under Paul's name by a Ron Paul corporation.
Yes they do. And he addressed it directly, saying he wasn't aware of what was in them until several years after they were published, and that when he became aware of them it was put to a stop. Since he's been back in politics there hasn't been any of it, far as I know.
I suggest that you and anyone else who's curious visit some of these wacko websites such as Stormfront.org. I never claimed that EVERY white supremacist was a PaulBot, but there's a whole lotta love for Ron Paul being displayed at these places.
Been there, seen 'em. The fact that there's a whole lot of love for Ron Paul there isn't really any kind of evidence at all, considering there's a whole lot of love for Ron Paul at many non-wacko Web sites, as well.
He takes
"Moral Responsibility" 
What exactly is that?
Seriously? You don't know? Taking a moral responsibility is recognizing the moral responsibility to act in a morally responsible manner. It's ethics. In this case, the moral responsibility was to put a stop to it and not let it happen again, to be more aware of what goes out under his name. He did that. What more would you have him do?
Is that the type of responsibility that's supposed to allow him to avoid any possible consequences and not be held accountable by the voters?
Not at all. It's the type where you acknowledge your actions, or lack thereof, and then act accordingly. The voters also have a responsibility, too, and they will hold Paul, and themselves, responsible when they vote.
Talk about "politics as usual"...
You gotta be kidding me;
No, I'm not kidding you, he actually said that.
remember the validity of these words - "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"? What he says means nothing unless one assumes he's a politician that doesn't lie.
The difference, of course, is that Clinton had a history of lying, whereas Paul doesn't.
Furthermore, we don't know that he didn't write or didn't condone the stuff in the newsletters - we don't know who wrote the newsletters and he won't tell us who did. The fact that he won't come clean on that tells us a lot.
You're right, we don't know if he did or did not, so it's just ludicrously retarded for anyone to assume one way or the other. However, Paul did say he didn't write them, and as since he has no history of lying, and his public record indicates he's not a racist, there is little reason to assume things to the contrary.
So you're saying it's "disingenuous" to offer opinions (supported by publicly available evidence) that are contrary to the Paul orthodoxy that's so common in this forum?
If those opinions are based on lies or misrepresentations of the truth, yes, it's quite disingenuous to label that as "balance". You cannot balance the truth with a lie or an unknown. Can't be done. You can balance an opinion with another, but neither can be based on something other than the truth and be valid.
Are you also saying the pro-Paul opinions are the gospel truth unencumbered by bias??
I don't think so. In fact, if you were to ask me, I'd say that most of the pro-Paul opinons here are based on a definite bias of being in favor of his positions on the various issues. I would further comment that RLENT is so encumbered with bias that he's borderline (being kind with that qualifier) fanatical about it, where he will dismiss the negatives or even look for excuses for them. Do you want to be the other side of the RLENT coin? Flip.
My point of view is that what was written in the Ron Paul newsletters and published by a corporation that bore his name is worth consideration by the voters because it could reveal a side of him that he doesn't want exposed to daylight during his presidential run.
I agree completely. The key to it all is being willing to listen to the man, look at his record, and discern whether what was written in those newsletters do, in fact, reveal a side of Paul, or rather they are merely the ramblings of a ghost writer that reveal nothing whatsoever about Paul himself.
The fact that he "disavows" the written statements and takes the Bart Simpson position that he didn't do it and doesn't know who did is about as credible as the infamous Clinton quote mentioned above.
OK.
Why do you believe it's not credible? Do you think all newsletters are penned or approved by their namesake? Do you think a man who left politics and went back into medicine full time would still pay attention to a political newsletter that someone else had taken over? Does Paul have a history of lying? Does he have a history of racist charges? Why is it not credible?
Here's the bottom line: he needs to come clean about who wrote and published the newsletters.
To name the authors is a very easy thing, and it would certainly shed some easy light on the newsletters. So why doesn't he just name the names and be done with it? You do realize that there's a better than fair chance he's legally bound to not reveal the author(s) of those pieces, right? Mutual contracts are signed with ghostwriters which prevent the authors from taking credit, and preventing the publishers and namesakes from naming the authors. If he were to "come clean", as you say, it would open him up to litigation. And he'd lose. Instead, he's showing principles, ethics and a moral responsibility to honor that contract. Maybe even to his detriment.
He says he didn't write them. Despite there being no reason to doubt him, you are of course under no obligation to believe him. You are however under a moral obligation to not pound away as if he did write them, with no supporting evidence whatsoever sans other's opinions to back it up. I don't have a problem with anyone posting their opinions about anything, but when they (and you) use strawmen and other logical fallacies as the basis for conclusions, that's where I have a problem, because it's not the truth.
You posted a very biased an unbalanced collection of newsletter snippets, collected specifically to show Paul as being something which his own historical record shows to be untrue, and then tried to pass it off as something the public should use in order to
"get a better idea of what was being put out in Ron Paul's name." That's immensely disingenuous. It's a distortion of reality, and it was done on purpose. You really and truly think that's balance?
If you're afraid of Ron Paul because he's a frightening little cuss (unlikely) or because of his ideas (probably) then say so. It's OK to be honest.
If you like big government who intrudes on our liberties, then say so. It's OK to be honest.
If you are a neocon who likes the idea of war, of telling other countries what to do and forcing them to do what we want out of fear of us, who thinks "national security interests" and "national interests" are the same thing, then say so. It's OK to be honest.
If you think isolationism and non-interventionism are the same thing, then say so. It's OK to be honest.
If you think we can't have too many federal policemen and that the TSA should be patting down little old ladies' Depends and confiscating terroristic cupcakes because the chocolate icing kinda-sorta resembles a gel-like substance that's banned on airplanes, then say so. It's OK to be honest.
If you think it's OK for the government to tell you how to live your life, and to squash your free speech when they don't agree with it, then say so. It's OK to be honest.
These are some of the positions of Ron Paul. But me, I'm much more concerned with a bunch of ghostwritten newsletters from 20 years ago. That's what's important. <snort>
