posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:49 PM
I don't buy Ron Paul's response. To me it's worthless. The fact that such hate speech was published over the course of decades under his name
definitely qualifies as guilty by association. I don't understand how someone who has allegedly stood for all Americans over his entire career could
allow such garbage to be published under his name or be associated with his name for DECADES. Paul's response does not ring true. It's like the
late and former CEO Kenneth Lay saying, "I didn't know." That he wasn't aware of any of the illegal activities the executives of his company were
involved with. How could a person of Lay's talent and shrewd ability not know anything? Not much is going to get by someone of Kenneth Lay's
stature. His was the quintessential rags to riches story. Anyway, Ron Paul operates in the public arena where one's image and reputation are
everything. Because of that, it is impossible for me to believe, “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only
be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999:
‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and
oppressive governmental policies.’ Those sentiments do not jibe with the content of his newsletters at all. In fact, why have sentiments such
as those not been brought forth yet, that have been published in Ron Paul's newsletters? It would be the perfect rebuttal by his campaign to produce
such an article written by Ron Paul's hand during the time period those newsletters were published. Preferably and article that appears alongside
the garbage in question.
Paul consistently denies having wrote those article, yet he doesn't go as far to furnish proof that he did not write them. Yes, it was years ago,
but I do not see any other candidate that is not also suffering the actions of there past. Words written and published constitute actions taken.
They are not just words, they are meaning and communication, and whether Ron Paul wrote them or not the fact is that they are associated with his
name, and as far as I am concerned, he has not done enough to dispel the stench.
For some reason the Ron Paul Campaign will not take the easy way out bury this issue for once and for all. If one wants the full scoop one has to
have access to the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society in order to research Paul's newsletters. Any attempt to bring the
content of the newsletters to light results attacks against the writers who make an attempt to do so. Maybe the records of who wrote what no longer
exist. Who knows? I cannot imagine any other candidate having a ghost of a chance at party nomination, never mind as POTUS, with having their name
associated with such material. Would Barack Obama be in the position that he is in if such newsletters were attributed and associated with him? No.
If those articles were associated with any politician on the current ticket, you could bet the value of your home that those candidates would not be
on the current ticket. No one would believe that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been aware that such newsletters had been published under her name
without her consent or approval, anymore than they believed her when she denied having withheld billing records for legal work she had done at the
Rose Law Firm for Madison Guaranty in connection with Whitewater Development Corporation. It is clear to me that the Ron Paul Campaign has not been