This is a complex issue to bring up. Ultimately I believe that an individual has the right to believe what he will, even if it is hateful, and to speak his beliefs, even if they are hateful.

The only question this brings up for ron paul as a candidate is, will he them work to diminish the rights of minority groups? Given what we know about his economic and political sensibilities I doubt it.

He is still extremely plain speaking though, perhaps to a fault.

He is still, also, the only suitable candidate for president, currently running, which is still, terrifying.

We could have avoided this if people had had the fortitude to elect Nader in 2000

Sent by Jody Sol | 3:40 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Dr. Paul is not a racist. He has taken responsibility, but also states they aren't his words. HE is the most consistent moral politician in Washington. Just because he is not a "front runner" and he is the only Republican speaking against the war James Kirchick is trying to make him look dishonorable. Well Mr. Kirchick, you can't put a viel of lies over my eyes. And NPR.. You don't give Ron Paul the credit he deserves. Do you ever think that if the media gave Ron Paul a chance to show the U.S. the depth of his knowledge that he might be known? That he might touch the hearts of these people that claim they want change? I love you NPR, but am extremely ashamed.

Sent by Matthew Good | 3:45 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Instead of merely claiming that Ron Paul is anti-semetic or homophobic, why don't you show us some examples of his being so. These claims, without any examples, end up sounding like baseless attacks - typical of those who claim that someone with a political viewpoint different than their own is "anti-semetic."

Sent by Juan Rodriguez | 4:01 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Yet another reason to be thankful that Mr. Paul is not getting traction in the Presidential campaign, aside from people on the fringes of the Republican party!

Sent by Michael | 4:07 PM ET | 01-10-2008

'They' are obviously getting nervous! People are waking up and removing the wool from their eyes. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." We are at step 3.

Sent by Josh | 4:56 PM ET | 01-10-2008

I don't believe the claims that he is a racist. There is no evidence. Ron Paul has proven that he values the constitution above all else: that means equal rights for all.

If this is all the dirt that they can dig up on Ron Paul: that someone else wrote something under his name, then I'd say he's doing pretty good.

Sent by James | 5:05 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Thought you might like to hear about this

Sent by Frost | 5:29 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Dr. Paul seems to have stood up and done his best to set the record straight. At this point he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

The columnist's approach, holding Ron Paul up to judgment irrespective of his apology and explanation, is something that is likely to return to Kirchick in an area where he is unready to be examined and judged to a like standard. Generally it is preferable to give the benefit of the doubt for just this reason.

Sent by Robert | 5:37 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Ron Paul's actions are intolerable. These words, whether his or not, should have been denounced from the beginning. If not, they become his.

It is a Democracy to allow him to say what he wishes. It is inexcusable to give him a job where he can put his views into action!

Sent by BillW | 5:43 PM ET | 01-10-2008

I believe Ron Paul, I don't agree with him on everything, but it is clearly a smear attempt. This guy decides to publish it on the day of the New Hampshire primary, they have been anti-Paul on that website since day one, and it is obvious that they are willing to do anything to destroy the thought of a true conservative educating and catching on with the masses.

I hope Ron wins, his message is a message of hope and real change, not just pretty speeches about change that you would get from an Obama, or fear tactics of a Giuliani. He'll be fine, the guys not a racist, not a bigot and was simply used for name recognition in letters from the past.

Sent by Gsalou | 5:47 PM ET | 01-10-2008

NPR never claimed Ron Paul was anti x y or z. It just reported the facts regarding the newsletters and RP's association with them. The article also printed some of RP's comments regarding this. If people would just slow down and think instead of running off with assumptions the world will be a better place.

Sent by Ron Poor | 5:49 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Maybe someone should send in the facts about TNR?

"TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul rEVOLution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication's style--hysterical smears aimed at political enemies."

Sent by Josh | 6:00 PM ET | 01-10-2008

So... If Ron Paul didn't write the words he denies he wrote, yet were sent to press and were written by "someone else" - then, who is that "someone" else and why is their name missing from all the news accounts about this...? Does Mr. Paul know who wrote those words and put his name on the article(s) without his knowledge...? Is there a reason this "person" hasn't been outted as the real author of the articles Mr. Paul denies writing...?

Sent by ScootCoot | 6:04 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Every Black, Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian, Native American, Homosexual, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, or any other category the establishment would like to attach on us human beings ought to vote for Ron Paul and give his campaign support. Why? Because Ron Paul believes that each individual person should have the opportunity to live out a unique life of liberty and freedom which our Creator has endowed us with. Other candidates are interested in controlling us as a collective group of consumers and worker bees supporting the Nanny State. Dr Ron Paul is the antidote to that sort of twisted and sick thinking.

Sent by Matt | 6:38 PM ET | 01-10-2008

The real outrage I would like to see NPR have the guts to cover is why Ron Paul was excluded by Fox from the NH debate. He was ahead of Giuliani in both Iowa and NH, and raised more money than any of them, including more from military donors... and Fox refused to supply a reason for the exclusion, even to its own subsidiaries.

Now THAT would be balanced journalism, counteracting the commercial media, on a controversial topic - something NPR ought to do well.

Sent by manfmnantucket | 6:49 PM ET | 01-10-2008

"NPR never claimed Ron Paul was anti x y or z. It just reported the facts regarding the newsletters and RP's association with them. The article also printed some of RP's comments regarding this. If people would just slow down and think instead of running off with assumptions the world will be a better place." Well thats just it, they are not reporting facts. They are reporting assertions made by a someone with an agenda to derail RP's campaign. This is old news and has been throughly debunked on wikipedia. This is what is called 'Yellow Journalism" and shame on NPR for not researching this beforehand. Furthermore, it is a deliberate smear attempt because RP has the highest amount of African American supporters among Republicans.

Sent by Josh | 7:05 PM ET | 01-10-2008

He's responsible for every word published in his name.

It's the old "ignorance of the law is no defense" thing--if it was done on your watch and you're the responsible person for the overall publication, it's on your head. The buck stops there.

By not stopping it, approval is implied.

Sent by Journalist | 7:09 PM ET | 01-10-2008

If you're afraid of allowing people to speak their minds, live in freedom, and be responsible for their own words, then don't vote for Ron Paul. That is, if you're obsessed with controlling minds, as opposed to allowing reason and dialogue to win out over intolerance and bigotry, then Dr. Paul is not your man.

No-one who looks at his record could for a minute believe that Paul is prejudiced toward any category of citizens, much less a racist or homophobe. As Matt so aptly stated, anyone concerned about a candidates treatment of minorities would do themselves a huge favor by supporting this last of the great statesmen, Ron Paul.

Sent by Matthew | 8:01 PM ET | 01-10-2008

NPR...if you do not LISTEN to Ron Paul's message and KNOW that he speaks the TRUTH then I wonder how you can claim to be the news source that I have listened to for more than 25 years now.

Put this dirt in its place and give Paul a boost instead of a jab from it. He is the ONLY candidate telling the WHOLE TRUTH about the government of our country. Money and Power run everything and the only ones really making money are those who benefit from the extraordinary debt that the majority of us are paying. $9T or is it $53T...either way we owe more than own and NO country in history has survived this. Look at the history...it is a fact AND our FOUNDERS wrote the CONSTITUTION to prevent the debt that the government and the Federal Reserve Bank have created. PLEASE NPR.

Sent by Jonathan Fraser | 9:55 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Ron Paul won't get anywhere with his campaign anyways, so who cares? anyone who runs a newsletter and doesn't keep stuff like that from being published (whether his words or not) is not a very responsible person. whether Paul is a racist or not doesn't really matter, this makes him look pretty irresponsible to me. responsibility is a pretty important trait for a national leader to possess.

Sent by N | 9:57 PM ET | 01-10-2008

I find it horrifying that so many are this uninformed about a candidate they support. I am neutral as to whether or not Dr. Paul is a racist, bigot, humanitarian, the real deal etc. However, that anyone who supports him was unaware of this controversy is unconscionable. This story is not new. It has been circulating for some time, with the evidence to back it! It is wonderful to be enthusiastic about a candidate, but before throwing support to any candidate voters have a responsibility to do their research. Don't make a decision based solely on what they say in their ads or debates!

I have a lot of respect for the type of politician that Dr. Paul is, whether or not I agree with him 100%. It is refreshing to see a politician on either side buck their party's line. This country needs more of that!

Sent by Kerry | 11:31 PM ET | 01-10-2008

This man is so honest that he accepted moral responsibility for something printed under his name & he was not aware about it.Dr Paul MADE me a new person through his actions.
SHAME ON YOU NPR circulating false allegation instaed of mentioning Dr Paul as the tax payers best friend, his message of liberty, putting money back into the people's pocket by abolishing the IRS.....etc etc etc.
Anybody who red a simple thing obout Dr Paul wont believe for a second these baseless allegation.
What do we benifit from 20 years false allegations?
Let me tell you, during this election I saw the dark side on NPR, like the rest of the networks.

Sent by resimc | 12:01 AM ET | 01-11-2008

NPR what is wrong with you?

Sent by kakel | 12:16 AM ET | 01-11-2008

To quote Peter Segal of Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me, "...Democrats or Republicans or whoever the people who support Ron Paul are..."
It seems as if many bloggers here are Ron Paul supporters themselves. I like Ron Paul out of all Republicans, but when I heard this story and saw the blogs I changed my mind. Ron Paul may not have written those words, but it was in HIS newsletter, which HE publishes and edits. If I owned a newsletter I would make sure that NO RACIST COMMENTS WERE PUBLISHED. If he makes the excuse that he can't look over everything in a newsletter, can we trust him with looking over foreign policies in the White House?
Oh, and about the claim that the publisher is anti-Paul, SO WHAT? Does it matter? If I saw the comments in those newsletters, I wouldn't waste a second to let the world know.
To new bloggers: If you make anti-Paul arguements and you see that many people disagree, don't be suprised. Ron Paul has a powerful web presence, so just leave them alone and let them have their "moment".

Sent by EB | 12:18 AM ET | 01-11-2008

Yeah, "Ron Paul" didn't actually say any of these things. They were just on a newsletter that he publishes, under his name and made to appear as if they were written by him. Holding him accountable would be akin to holding the President accountable for everything he says in his speeches, even though his words are actually written by speech writers.

If you are afraid of a politician who is afraid to speak his mind about his beliefs that 95% of black men are criminals then maybe you really shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

Sent by Gil | 2:15 AM ET | 01-11-2008

I'll preface this by saying that until this information surfaced I was an advocate of Ron Paul's to some extent. I believe that lately this country's current administration has passed laws and various government acts that have stomped all over our constitution and left us at the brink of a fascist state. The idea of bringing back a strict constitutionalist administration is compelling and I believe may be the right way for our country to halt it's downward spiral. Until recently I thought that Ron Paul might be able to do that.

However, It appears that this presidential candidate has a very unfortunate past. Not only was he the only US congressman to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that vote was followed by dozens of racist, sexist and homophobic comments for which there is just no excuse.

Sent by Shiona | 9:32 AM ET | 01-11-2008

"I didn't write it" is as lame as "I didn't inhale it".

Sent by Jane Bartolo | 10:04 AM ET | 01-11-2008

This post makes me wonder - who actually wrote these newsletters and why did Ron Paul lend his name to such a publication? Furthermore, why didn't he monitor the content of these newsletters for which he so graciously lent his name? I'd love to see a follow up post addressing these questions.

Sent by Ed P. Gackston, III | 10:08 AM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul's "explanation" is the same old line we've heard from politicians, athletes, etc., more times than I could count. They utter the phrase "I take responsibility," but it's a meaningless sound bite because at the same time they say "but I didn't do anything wrong and I shouldn't have to face any consequences for it." I don't believe for a minute that he didn't know what was being said in his own newsletter--but if it is true, then he was inexcusably negligent.

Sent by Jay | 10:52 AM ET | 01-11-2008

TOP SHELF, NPR, TOP SHELF. Your manufacturing of news reminds me of a quote in the movie Cold Mountain: "They made the rain and when the storm came they said *@%# IT'S RAINING!" Rest assured when someone starts upsetting the establishment apple cart, the roaches will come out of the woodwork to destroy those who dare challenge their ill-gotten gains. I will say Ron Paul should (and has) taken moral responsibility for allowing his name to be affiliated with the venomous words in question--that does not mean he should be villified as the author of them (especially that these views are anathema to his character). Has anyone ever HEARD RP spew this trash?? I think not! You know, often times (especially of late), I ponder if the Germans in 1933 were as apathetic to the foreboding storm that a minority voice surely tried to articulate. When the purge of this nation arrives (and it's coming), I'll remember those who willfully steered the masses into complacency.

Sent by Thomas Braun | 11:32 AM ET | 01-11-2008

Shame on Npr for reporting anything about Ron Paul that may be construed as negative, even if it is factual. Where are we living? Nazi Germany. Has this really become a country where the media feels obligated to report factual information about presidential candidates? That is truly bone chilling.
And I agree with everyone who mentioned the timing of this news release. Npr and other news organizations should have waited till Mr. Paul was elected before discussing his racist ideals. How irresponsible. Daniel Shore would be rolling over in his grave if he weren't still alive.
Oops, I'm late for my Illuminati meeting, gotta go. It's in the back room of the Yeshiva on 22nd st, that's where we orchestrate and run everything in case you were wondering. Oh no, I hope no gentiles are reading this, I wasn't supposed to tell you guys.

Sent by gil | 1:01 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Mitt Romney's religion is clearly documented as being outrightly racist up unitl 1979. John McCain made racist disparaging remarks about people from the Middle East during the debate last night. Where is the outrage for these things?

Dr. Ron Paul mistakenly trusted someone to write things for his newsletter over a decade ago, and the very media that's been purposely ignoring him for months, suddenly can't stop talking about him once they have something hurtful to say.

I thought NPR was different than FOX. I guess not. How disappointing.

Sent by A Former NPR Donor | 5:34 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Yeah, great way to focus on the important issues you guys. Did you even notice the racist rhetoric coming *directly* from the mouths of the other candidates in last night's debate? Maybe it's not important because those racist comments were directed toward Muslims and we all know that all Muslims are terrorists, right?

I mean, what is wrong with you guys? Are you freaking blind? You have these childish, giggling, joking candidates that are running for the highest office of the greatest military power in the world and they are actually making racist comments on camera yet you guys are preoccupied with these newsletters? When Ron Paul has never displayed any sign of racism in any of his debates, interviews, books, Congressional record or beliefs!! Wake up!

Sent by DefendTheConstitution | 5:40 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Paul lent his name to a small newsletter for a short time that he did not edit, while he was out of politics and concentrating on delivering babies. I look at it as running an unmoderated blog in the days before the internet. The writing style was not Ron Paul's. In his newsletters since being back in Congress, he is clearly in charge and they are wonderful to read. Clearly Paul is the most vehement anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-individual, & pro-gay rights person in Congress. The New Republic did not even contact Ron Paul to talk to him about their story & they did not seem to know that it had been discussed several times over the years & dismissed as not reflecting Ron Paul's beliefs. The New Republic, if you will remember, compared Ross Perot to Hitler! Ron Paul is a good man being smeared for political reasons.

Check out this website for the CNN interview with Ron Paul about this where all is explained:
Hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html

Sent by DenisL | 5:42 PM ET | 01-11-2008

What is wrong at NPR - I used to have respect for you but now I know the truth !
You are no better than FOX news. Boy did you pull the wool over my eyes for sometime . Ron Paul has the best ideas of any canidate and is not a neocon like the rest of the Rep party . I am a liberal democrat but this year I will support the only canidate ( except for Dennis K ) that has the guts to tell the American people the truth . This issue on the papers is a bunch of BS - who really cares - How many people died because of what someone wrote ?????????
Give me the names of all the dead people - those letters killed . Mean while we have a bunch of nut cases who have no problem watching our Military get killed everyday in a land far far away ? what the hell is wrong with this nation and when did NPR become one and the same as FOX ABC CBS and NBC ???????

Sent by Sam | 5:55 PM ET | 01-11-2008

John McCain says he is "the most honest man in congress." No one has ever heard a single word or phrase uttered from Paul that reflects a racist way of thinking. Nor has anything authored and signed by him ever shown to be reflective of this attitude. Those of you so convinced that the great "dark side" of Ron Paul has been exposed only show your own racist prejudice. Sure, pat yourselves on the back.

Sent by dan | 5:56 PM ET | 01-11-2008

When you start getting hit with flack, you are right over the target. Ron Paul must be right over the target!
This is all they can do? The NeoCon Media has been exposed for what they are and that is not fair and balanced new reporting! We know they will try to slander the good Doctor more and more. We shall over come. We shall stop this ponzi scheme called the federal reserve. We shall take our country back from the theives.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!

Sent by Doug Elam | 6:14 PM ET | 01-11-2008

If you want to see what Ron Paul has to say about this issue, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw This is a perfect example of dirty politics.

Sent by crldrummer | 6:20 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul is as pure as the driven snow. I hear and understand him and know he has integrity. I see a future great President in him. Nothing you write will change that.

Sent by MarkD | 6:20 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul is a threat to the military, medical, and banking industrial complex. If you also believe he is a racist then Ron Paul is threat to minorities, gays, jews, and really rich white guys. Some may also say that he is a threat to women because he is against abortion....Wow Liberty is hard!

Sent by Rand Thinker | 6:25 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is trying to save this country and give our children some hope for the future. How sad if this will get in the way of the important movement he has started. I look at Ron Paul and I see a person who will fight for the rights of any individual. We all have the choice to believe what we want to believe. I would be proud to have Doctor Ron Paul as President.

Sent by Lars | 6:32 PM ET | 01-11-2008

NPR never and I repeat NEVER talks about Ron Paul as a candidate and this is how you finally decide to bring him up? This is petty crap. Why don't you go dig in the closets of YOUR candidates' closets for a change, you liberal rejects! And to think I have been listening to NPR for years as well as supported KUT in Austin this past year and for what? For this? This isn't real news...get with the program.

Sent by Jessica | 6:33 PM ET | 01-11-2008

> Kirchick wrote in his piece,
> anticipating the "I didn't write it"
> explanation:

He "anticipated" this?

How impressive, since this is what Paul said over a freaking decade ago.

What's even more impressive is that this supposed bigot Paul hasn't even made a single utterance of racist statements ever in public.

We're all beginning to see what is behind the media's curtain.

Sent by Richard Wicks | 6:37 PM ET | 01-11-2008

While every American has the right to know about these newsletters, every American also has the right to hear Dr. Paul's explanation of them. James Kirchick did not address Paul's explanation in his article, a fact which immediately raised red flags. Upon further investigation into the matter,I discovered that the New York Times removed an article from publication on December 27th, 2007 which also called into question Dr. Paul's reputation. The article was removed as a result of "questionable claims". A week and a half later, these same accusations mysteriously appear in the 'New Republic', a magazine which has few qualms over voicing neo-conservative opinion. Is it just a coincidence that James Kirchick appeared on several news networks on the morning of the New Hampshire primary? Seeing that Ron Paul represents a strengthening movement to restore traditional Republican policies over those of President Bush and other high-ranking officials, it takes no stretch of the logic to conclude that this was a pre-conceived attack on the presidential candidate's otherwise flawless reputation of strict adherance to the Constitution.

Sent by Brice | 6:37 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Megaphone software notwithstanding, RP HAS taken responsibility for the newsletters. He has never been 'caught' making any racist remarks. The facts of a libertarian principle are clear. Everyone is equal. What the candidate has said is that his heros are Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Those are the unequivocal facts. This twenty year old smear is a sign of desperation. Hey NPR why don't you cover the issues?

Sent by Arnold Benedict | 6:38 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Please at least mention Ron Paul, even once? It's pretty sad when Wolf Blitzer of CNN ends up being more fair to the lesser-known candidates than NPR. Shame, shame, shame that you only now start taking notice. If nothing else, there is a news story in how ardent and active his supporters are.

Sent by Andrew Hakso | 6:38 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Perhaps the ugliest tradition in American politics is rehashing old embarrassments on the day of an election.

Sent by Scotch Moose | 6:42 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul was busy delivering babies and focusing on his medical practice when this stuff was published. He's agreed over and over again that it was negligent to let other people hijack his good name and publish under his banner- but we're not talking about an international publication that anyone was reading. It's good to report the facts, but let's also put it in perspective. This was an error of judgment, but he's not a racist.

Sent by Nathan | 6:44 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The media is at it again. Why does the media try so hard to discredit Ron Paul? Well, I'm not into conspiracies but I do understand capitalism. Drug companies have become some of the biggest buyers of adverts & spend 35 Billion annually in the US on 'Direct to Consumer' advertising, which represents half of their yearly expenses on promotions. Well, Ron Paul's Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 07) & YES on allowing re-importation of prescription drugs. (Jul 03). Such political stances in a president could cause a dramatic reduction in profits for the big drug companies, & the advertisers they use. Drug companies as a result would drastically reduce the amount of money they could afford on advertising resulting in literally billions of dollars in lost revenue for the Mass Media. So could that have anything to do with the general disregard toward Ron Paul from the MSM? If you ran a media outlet and there was a candidate running who's election would cost your company a fortune in revenue you wouldn't want your employees saying anything good about that candidate either.

Sent by John Not | 6:45 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul's appearance on CNN with Wolf Blitzer was effective. Paul explained himself well, repudiated the ignorant views of the "newsletters," and outlined his stand against the institutional racism of the US justice system. For his part, Blitzer seemed to concede that Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters and that they didn't resemble anything Paul has ever said.

Sent by Charlotte | 6:46 PM ET | 01-11-2008

From the UK, NPR is the Judas of your greatest most honorable statesman since
JFKennedy.

I hope the 20 pieces of federal reserve paper was worth betraying a worldwide revered man

history will rememeber such anti freedom
shills

Sent by bob | 6:48 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Read this, then decide:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

Sent by Michael | 6:53 PM ET | 01-11-2008

This issue was discuss quite a bit over the summer, primarily among Ron Paul supporters online. So an issue that's been around since the early 1990's and was vetted last summer, makes it out on all the national media the day of the New Hampshire primary? That smells bad.

A warning to the media. Russia, Korea, Iran and other countries who usually take flack for their media bias and censorship, have been vigorously (and truthfully) reporting problems with the American media's coverage of Dr. Paul.

Congratulations, you've just lost all credibility on an international scale and hurt chances of exanding a free press to the rest of the world.

Oh, and by the way. Do you think it's possible that a congressman critical of pretty much all of the misplaced power, corruption, lobby influence and the monetary, military and health care industrial complexes just might have an enemy or two that would seek to discredit him by putting out slurs in his name?

This whole affair reminds me of the passage in Pauls letter to Timothy, which states, "These people will speak lies disguised as truth. Their consciences have been scarred as if branded by a red-hot iron."

Sent by Pete Mackin | 7:00 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I'm glad Giuliani doesn't have this kind of dirt on him. Otherwise, I'd have to vote for a democrat.

Sent by truther | 7:08 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Every presidential candidate deserves to be attacked and vetted, and Ron Paul has handled this quite well. What's amazing is that the guy is over 70 years old and this is the best dirt anyone can find on him?

If you actually read the comments in the journal, and not just Kirchick's politically motivated headlines, you'll see the comments were actually quite benign. Considering Paul didn't even write them, they have even less weight.
The fact that he's getting attacked strongly suggests that he's a real factor in this race for the White House.

Kirchick has made a great career leap by attempting to destroy the career of another, and that's rather disturbing. But other than that, Kirchick's articles against Paul are a good example of what the free press is all about. We need folks like Kirchick to educate voters on all aspects of a candidate... no one should be exempt! Kirchick has the right to say what he thinks, and I have the right to discredit him... I can dig it.

lache pas,
LeBoeuf

Sent by Dr. Steven F. LeBoeuf | 7:10 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Just so you understand, Dr. Paul is not just running for office, he is leading a Revolution. We chose him because he is the most honorable man in Washington. The smear campaign is pointless. We know the character of the man we choose. He will free thousands of minorities when he pardons non violent drug offenders who have been enslaved to work for pennies for multinational corporations in prison factories. google RonPaulforpresident and you will see young Ron with Rosa Parks. The demeanor of the picture tells the real story. Ron was with someone he admired. Dr. Paul's message of freedom is being heard around the World. He has said, "not even an army can stop an idea whose time has come!"

Sent by Elaine McKillop | 7:26 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Excellent.
Ignore his results in the NH election on the Morning Edition while reporting that Thompson won 1% of the vote and then add a contribution to the media's smear campaign against him.

NPR always seemed to me to be the last refuge of journalism with integrity in the USA, how sad it is to realize I was wrong.

Sent by Dee McDuff | 7:26 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Don't you have anything good to write about Ron Paul. This is post looks like Link Bait or Fodder.

Sent by nannyjane | 7:28 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The problem here is that Ron Paul DOES speak so plainly. When accused of being racist, his response makes perfect sense & proves he isn't. But Americans are terrified of being accused of racism, and the hard left insists you take unreasonable measures to show the public that you aren't. Hence, insisting he gives the $500 back to that wingnut in Flordia. No doubt, the thought police in America today is the hard left, which intimidates the soft center.

Sent by Colt-1 | 7:29 PM ET | 01-11-2008

For the first time in my 55 years, I feel like an invisible American. I served in the Air Force for 20 years. I am a parent, a homeowner, and a patriotic citizen. I have never been arrested, and never intentionally spoken against America. These are times that could be discouraging. The local media has picked up on Dr. Paul. Today's print edition of the Washington Post coverage of the Fox debate included pictures of 6 of the participants (none of Dr. Paul. Also, on page A16 there was an entry titled "Ron Paul's Appeal". Also, if you search Google News, there is extensive coverage of the Ron Paul Newsletters and implicit racism.

I joined the largest Ron Paul meetup in Texas to find out how the local (Texas) newspapers and supporters are dealing with this new notoriaty. I figure that the people of Texas know his record best. Just a thought. While I don't believe we should act as "web nuts" I wonder if it would do any good for all of us in the DC area to send the Washington Post a picture of Dr. Paul...just in case they don't have one.

Sent by Dianne | 7:31 PM ET | 01-11-2008

"It's the old "ignorance of the law is no defense" thing--if it was done on your watch and you're the responsible person for the overall publication, it's on your head. The buck stops there.

By not stopping it, approval is implied."

Oh really? I suppose if you had your credit card stolen from you (identity theft), and you didn't stop it, you must approve of it being stolen? Nice.

Sent by Jeff | 7:31 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Did you all read Dr. Paul's comments? He says explicitly they are not his words, nor does he support these ideas. Why does NPR choose THIS as news, when it should be more discerning and report on the bigger picture. OH, I know! It is GOVERNMENT radio, and if Paul gets elected, well, you can say goodbye to your job there!
NPR: radio for the establishment.

Sent by Chris | 7:35 PM ET | 01-11-2008

For anyone reading the comments to this and all other blogs mentioning the old Ron Paul newsletters, do not be shocked about the accusations that simply bringing up the newsletters is somehow despicable. Those who did not know of Ron Paul before the current campaign may be unaware that in his 1996 run for congress a single issue of these newsletters was released by his political opponent Charles Morris.
It was only one of the longer list of newsletters that New Republic has released this week (the rest have not been aired in the nedia until now).

Ron Paul supporters who have followed his career have obviously forgiven him for the language of the original newsletter especially after in the 2001 issue of Texas Monthly he took "moral responsibility" for what was published in his name while claiming that it was written by an "unnamed ghostwriter who did not represent his views." For the enthusiasts who continued to support him, the issue was closed and he was forgiven (although they may never have doubted him). It was also easy for most people to accept this explaination since it is entirely possible that a single article of this nature could appear in a single newsletter under his name if he was not in direct control of editing at the time.

What inclines readers to view the current situation in a different context is that the seriers of newsletters published in his name over a period of time pepperd with similar incindiary "racist" or "bigoted" statesments establishes a pattern that is harder for most people to dismiss as a simple mistake.

For Ron Paul supporters who have already forgiven him (or for those who believe what was said wasn't really that bad - most likely a select few) the recent release of these documents in the news reminds them of the earlier use of a single newsletter as a direct political attack by his former political opponent. Many of their fist reactions is to see this as the same old thing. Their animosity towards the "main stream media" and belief that the MSM has selected prefered candidates and discourages positive coverage of all others (especially Ron Paul) also leads them to believe any publication that exposes the newsletter is directly attacking Ron Paul's campaign.

Ron Paul supporters are also likely to be exhibiting attribution biases with the positivity effect while evaluating Ron Paul's responisbility while opponents will likely evaluate with the negativity effect.

Sent by josh_08 | 7:40 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Sounds like NPR needs to take off their tin foil hats. Of speculating whos a racist.

Why would paul suggest that he wanted a vice president like walter williams who happens to be black?

Why would Ron Paul repeal the war on drugs and pardon millions of non violent drug users? Which over 70 percent happen to be black?

Why would quote Dr martin luther king, ghandi and rosa parks if he was racist?

ANSWER THAT!!!

How come John Mccain calls people "gooks" then makes statement at the debate about trading burkas? and gets away with it?

Sent by MediaSmearCampaignFAIL | 7:51 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Ron Paul could not have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was not in office then.

I deplore the fact that he failed to prevent racist comments from going out under his name, but I support him anyway.

Like the rest of us, he's a fallible human being. It's the biggest mistake he ever made, and he put a stop to it a long time ago.

There are worse stories about all the other candidates, and many of them are likely to be true. Judge them on their whole records and the consequences of their actions.

I still think Dr. Paul comes out on top.

Sent by Wesley J. Pinchot | 7:52 PM ET | 01-11-2008

'"I didn't write it" is as lame as "I didn't inhale it".'

To those who have posted statements along these lines...stop and think for one minute. HE DIDN'T WRITE IT. THEY AREN'T HIS BELIEFS. HE'S NOT MAKING EXCUSES. THERE'S A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING A BIGOT, AND NEGLECTING TO PREVENT BIGOTRY (IN ONLY A FEW INSTANCES!). HE ACCEPTED FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NEGLECTING TO PREVENT THEIR PUBLICATION. The man is actually owning up to a mistake he made, unlike most other politicians who would try and justify their misdeeds (*cough* Giuliani).

Don't be fooled by such a blatant smear attempt. You're only perpetuating the corruption and propaganda that runs so rampant in our political system.

Sent by Ian C | 8:00 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Anybody can see the timing of this was designed to discredit Ron Paul with the black vote in SC. This crap was planted to discredit Ron Paul years ago. The power broakers in this country knew this man would become a threat someday and they planned for it. The more I hear and read of this man the more I love him. God bless you Ron Paul and help save the country from what it's become!

Sent by Joe | 8:07 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Obviously, Ron Paul is racist bigot. At the very least he has to approve the writing, how could he not ? when someone either work for you or close associate and uses your good name to send/publish racist articles about Blacks, Jewish,gays and other minoritys you can't just say " I don't know about it or did not approve it" not just once, but number of times that this man writen these articles. Thank you NPR for exposing this Evil Man!.

Sent by Haji .K | 8:12 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Show me one instance where Paul has legislated in the past 20 years in favor of racism! Show me one ACTION in his life that say he's a racist! No, then shut your stupid mouth. This is about stopping the revolution to bring back freedom for All men under the constitution.

Sent by Chris | 8:15 PM ET | 01-11-2008

National PUBLIC Radio.

Ron "Free Markets" Paul.

Let's just say the two would have a difficult time coexisting.

Sent by Martin | 8:19 PM ET | 01-11-2008

why not tell people about Ron Paul's other writings:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I think they would be more interested in in these.

Sent by dominic | 8:29 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Nice job NPR, I thought it's not biased and it's not corporation run media but here it goes with the flow of messed up media.
You can't stop Ron Paul REVOLUTION. I think someone should dig up his old speeches too which he gave to STOP Fed to take Gold standard OFF US currency. Would someone do it? any media? suckers. American people need to use their brain, google Ron Paul, hear him talking, get to know the guy, you 'll see how media is playing it's game. I bet you, if you have a properly functioning brain, whatever he says 'll make sense to you and you can easily distinguish between what's right and what's wrong.
Dr. Ron Paul for President :)

Sent by mana | 8:50 PM ET | 01-11-2008

TO THE COMMENT I PASTED BELOW FROM JOSH at 4:56 ET...

I must say you are entirely correct. Sadly, there are few of 'us' Americans out there but fortuntaly it's growing. I am talking about those that are willing to take time and reserach about the 'they'.

As cited below 'they' are getting nervous. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but Ron Paul is NOT 'one of them' the gov't will do everything in their power to not elect him. Sad thing is, he won't get elected. America has been 'dumbed down' thus naking Paul look like a quack.

With that you must google or wilkipedia CFR - Council on Foreign Relations. Though, it's not 'as' secretive of a comittee, you'll be introduced to the absurd and friegtening details of what we assume is really going on in the gov't. Here you will also find a citing of Ron Paul where is quoted in congress. AGAIN, what he says is accurate not a fisaad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

'They' are obviously getting nervous! People are waking up and removing the wool from their eyes. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." We are at step 3.

Sent by Josh | 4:56 PM ET | 01-10-2008

Sent by Alissa | 8:51 PM ET | 01-11-2008

So, Dr. Paul served as flight surgeon in Vietnam during the war, worked in county hospitals and delivered 4,000 babies into the world... and one is supposed to actually believe that a person can experience this in their lifetime and end up a racist or a bigot... You know, I really think that anyone who takes the time to try and reconcile these two thoughts might just realize that they are incongruent. I will say that it is in some sense good news... now I know the NWO is really scared. So, which do you prefer Chertoff's national ID or true freedom as put forth by our founding fathers via Ron Paul? People, I suggest you think long and hard, because after this election, there will be no turning back.

Sent by Chris | 8:53 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I've got to agree with Gil's humorous comment. How is reporting something that a candidate allowed to happen considered bad and dubious? It's only the Paul supporters screaming that this news is just the media's attempt to push complacency. From what I've seen, Paul's supporters are the most complacent of them all. Whether he said those racist words or not, allowing them to appear in HIS newsletters was nothing but irresponsible. And Paul supporters will be the first to tell you that Bush is irresponsible. Seems to me that they've all been bitten by the very thing they believe Paul will surely rid the world of: brain washing and complacency.

Sent by Nate | 8:55 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I was undecided as to who I was going to vote for, however after reading the past 2 days on this subject/person alone and a lot of the comments many from people who just don't bother to research anything, I have decided that I'm going to vote for Ron Paul. He wasn't even on my list before.

I'll tell you why. Many things on both sides don't match-up or make sense. So I looked a little further and found his earlier writings, some congressional speeches, and interviews. I could find NOTHING to suggest he agrees with what was written, nor has he shurked his responsibility, either then or now with this situation. He's the most conservative constitutionalist running for President that I've ever seen... and , no one can seem to answer this... If he's such a bad person then why or how is he a 10 term representative? Surely you're not going to suggest that the majority of people in his district are all those things that people are calling him, are you?

Guilt by association doesn't sit well with me and considering the life he's led and all that he's accomplished and tried to accomplish. He's the only candidate that has constantly stood up in congress and fought for our rights and freedoms time and time again, without fail, without even bending... he stands his ground and votes NO if it goes against the Constitution.

The more and more I see the "masses" going against him the more appealing he seems to me and the more gut feeling I get that tells me "He's the man for the job" and my gut hasn't failed me yet in all of my lifetime.

Sent by Dee | 8:58 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The mainstream media received their marching orders from their Zionist masters to smear Ron Paul and suppress his Peace message and silence his call for Freedom and Prosperity.

They deceived us into a two unjust wars for Israel with their lies and need to stop Dr. Ron Paul pointing at the blood on their hands.

They want to stop him exposing their ongoing efforts to get us to fight a couple more unjust wars for Israel in Iran and/or Pakistan.

Let us take back our country. Let us support Ron Paul???s effort to restore the constitution and lead us into a world of freedom prosperity and peace.

Sent by Joseph | 8:59 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Someone is worried about remarks that were not made by Paul decades ago, but are not concerned with McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee and Thompson bashing Muslims and Islam, as recently as the debate last night? Am I missing something? I'm far more concerned about the hateful things that the other candidates are saying right now. I remain a committed supporter of Ron Paul. This is a coordinated and sleazy attempt to sling mud selectively.

Sent by Liz | 9:04 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I have really been struggling with these articles that were published and after careful consideration of the facts presented. James Kirchick is absolutely correct in his assessment. RP is a candidate that we would not want in the Whitehouse. The articles do have strong racial overtones and gay hysteria. Ron Paul did not pen them but he might as well have.

America cannot tolerate, must not tolerate a President that would stop the war on drugs. Why would any reasonable person want a President to pardon these common criminals? We also must not tolerate a President that would prevent a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman and by proxy of the amendment declare gays as criminals. These dregs of our society deserving of the same punishment as those incarcerated on drug related charges.

Thank you James Kirchick for your reasoning and logic for bringing these issues out into the open. Well done Kirchick, well done. Your bold vision of America is what we need. I now fully understand what you believe as truth. Racism and gay bashing must continue, it would be a tragic mistake to elect Ron Paul.

Sent by Devils Advocate | 9:15 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I highly doubt that Ron Paul is a racist. I am very wary of whatever the media says about Ron Paul since FOX's unfair and blatantly corrupt way of suppressing his message by not allowing him to partake in the Republican forum on Tuesday, January 8, 2008.

I put the media above nothing after that debacle, and would do not doubt that they would try ANYTHING, desperately trying to create discord against Ron Paul. If they aren't trying to shut him up, they are trying to discredit him.

Sent by David Levin | 9:19 PM ET | 01-11-2008

the letters were debunked in 1996, you may wish to do some checking-

Sent by debunkedjunk | 9:23 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but like everyone else, I have been forced to watch hours of footage of him on the internet. I have seen footage as far back as the 80's. Nothing that I have ever watched made me think he was a racist. In fact... I can't even imagine words like that coming out of his mouth.
He just doesn't talk like that. This is just dirty politics!!

Go Fred for 08 !!

Sent by Fred08 | 9:35 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I am really dissappointed in NPR. I find it ironic that the media reports and circulates this report, that is more than a decade old. However, in the Republican debate performance, Ron Paul is not mentioned (to my knowledge) by Fox News, CNN and New York Times even though he performed well, and in some polls performed the best.

I do not understand that why when there is some trash on Ron Paul, all media is speaking. However, when he performs really well in debates, you never hear anything. Looking at the news sources, one would assume that Ron Paul did not even speak.

I find this disturbing, and I recommend everyone to look at Paul views (www.ronpaul2008.com). His views overall are refreshing.

Looking at the big picture, I think Ron Paul is the best choice for president, too bad that most americans look at one news source (most likely a tv channel) and will never hear of Ron Paul positions. (other than he is anti-war, and the two decade old remarks).

Sent by Sal | 9:35 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I imagine the CIA or whatever faction of CFR groups decided to seed Paul's name with bad karma by publishing these newsletters early on, in case Paul ever posed a threat to the corrupt elites who own our government.

Sent by Karl Olson | 9:36 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Lets all take our head's out of the sand, and look at all the comments that are at this very moment being posted under the NPR banner at the top of the website. Based on the logic being used against Ron, the producers of NPR should never be allowed into elected office.

Sent by ken | 9:37 PM ET | 01-11-2008

So I suppose Ron Paul is also responsible for the silver coins issued with his image that were confiscated earlier this year by the Gestapo, excuse me, I meant FBI.

Sent by Paul Marat | 9:38 PM ET | 01-11-2008

He isn't a racist. But the new meme will be, "He is incompetent" or something to that effect. Ok then, why don't you measure that oversite: not editing a newsletter while he ran a medical practice vs. this:

http://judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

The other candidates are so corrupt and comprimised that it is absurd. Laughable.

Sent by chris S | 9:38 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Gil, you are hilarious. That was pretty funny even if it missed the mark completely. First of all, this article is pretty objective. The only bad journalism here is of course, Kirchik's brand, which involves shrewdly-timed attacks using decades-old ammunition. Second, why is it so hard for people to believe that a truth-based anti-federal-government movement would attract a few radical conservatives and conspiracy theorists who were probably jumping at the chance to pen their views, and found a forum to do so under the name of a champion of the first amendment. Every movement born of unrest and dissent attracts a few undesirables who are a bit skewed from the intended direction. Paul takes the blame that it happened on his watch and under his name, which is more than you'll ever see any of these corrupt politicians in Washington do. He will NOT, as a defender of free speech, however, lead a witch hunt for the individuals actually responsible for the comments, as someone suggested he should do earlier. His principle and character will simply not permit it, however much he happens to disagree with their opinions.

Sent by Kent Swartzendruber | 9:40 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Like you said this is old news. If you can't see the politcal timing of this, you aren't paying that close of attention. To me, it shows that they want his ideas shut out. If he is so irrelavant the why does everyone keep talking about him?

Sent by David Monk | 9:44 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.

Ron Paul is not Racist in action or deed.

The ???Who??? has not been answered at this point. It is Grey. Ron Paul has many, Known to be of his person, essays on line and speeches on the floor of congress. Why not use these as reference of character; a heavy weight of Individual Respect will be found in counter form of the accused Racism.

I am disappointed with the mentally minuscule and the infirm of reason.

As a metaphorical example of foolery: To take a "Could Be", from a small percentage of available information and conclude an ill result, even though there is much greater to "It Is Not So"; Is an irrational weighting of Emotion.

Do Not, So Easily Be, Led.

I suggest you familiarize yourselves with the Accountable Actions Known To be Of Ron Paul; Not Accusations of trivial measure. The Accusations are ethereal and very circumstantial; Educate On Actual.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

Sent by Brad | 9:46 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The Paul-Wing is now born.Quertion,How many biack babies has DR, Paul delivered?

Sent by MARK from ALABAMA | 9:49 PM ET | 01-11-2008

LOL @ truther...seriously, I almost missed the sarcasim there...if that bigot "burka" McCain can win the NH primary...I don't doubt the American public is naive enough to swallow this load of dung.

Sent by Ryan | 9:55 PM ET | 01-11-2008

The letters were not debunked in 1996. In fact, it appears only ONE letter was in question then, and Ron Paul DEFENDED it, as did his campaign manager. TNR uncovered ADDITIONAL newsletters. Ron Paul defended at least one in 1996, in multiple media outlets, but this week claimed to have never seen them. That's dishonest. Ron Paul has defended these newsletters for years. Today, he's changed his tone and says he doesn't recall them and never saw them.

If you look at his press release, he says he never "uttered" those words and never "edited" the newsletter. He never said he didn't write them. He seems to forget that he was on record with a number of news outlets in 1996, defending at least one of these racist newsletters. Not only that, but some of those newsletters are written in first person, with Ron Paul's comments about his wife, his children and his grandchildren.

Sent by Hugh G. Knutts | 9:55 PM ET | 01-11-2008

It's amazing that even blatant proof like this, people still defend Ron Paul, claiming him to be a moral man. And they say that WE are brain washed? Give me a break!

Sent by One of the dumb blacks, as Ron Paul would say | 9:59 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Interesting how many keep parrotting the comments it was his newsletter, he edited it and he published it, That is not true and though this was done by some cowardly writer, who should take credit for his writings today, I hold Dr paul accountable for allowing the use of his name. On the other hand I have yet to see any example of the slightest racial incling from Dr. Paul who has delivered minority babies at no cost to the parents,who couldn't afford it. In addition I have seen no other candidate vow to release non violent drug offenders from prisons who have hurt no one but themselves and of course whose population in jails dwarfs white prisoners. For this alone the Minority communities should embrace him and assist him in defeating this so called war on drugs. Although many may disagree with me prohibitions do not work and so many are now addicted to legal drugs and walking our streets alcohol, valium, vicodin, oxycontin, silvia and the list goes on; even drinking Scope and snorting sure in Walmarts has been recorded. So the war on drugs is a failure and benefits only lawyers, judges, prisons and those who make money in the system while destroying families. I embrace Dr Pauls message and see no racism in the man whatsoever. I see plenty of bad and scary attributes from all of the other candidates and not a single one of them address the real issues coming up. The 70 trillion in future obligations for the baby boomers, the coming depression and the economic failure of this nation. Besides all you hear is how the Islamo facsist want to kill all that are not like them; so can some one tell me why they are not bombing the chinese or the Russians; they are not muslim. No it is because of our foreign policy and always was.
Good luck Dr. Paul, you are still the only one who cares about Americans much more than you care for yourself. God bless
PS I hate NPR, you bunch of socialists!

Sent by Ray | 10:05 PM ET | 01-11-2008

seems like most of the people here back up ron paul. something is wrong with voting machines :[

Sent by luis | 10:10 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I just watched Noam Chomsky's movie the other night very interesting watch it if you haven't. The point I want to make is that he sights the extreme bias that NPR can have and gives many examples.

It is sad what passes for journalism these days, it's like what bushco did with the war, just keep telling the lie over and over and eventually people start to believe it. However anybody who has studies the facts of the war has no doubts about all the lies that were told. The same is true of Dr Paul This man has more information and writing available to the public (and the press) than any other candidate so it is easy to see the lies with a minimum of research. What has been attributed to him is simply incongruent with the body of his work. It would be like saying bush was against the war.

Paul T

Sent by Paul T | 10:16 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I decided to do some research on my own about this, as it seemed unthinkable that an accomplished public figure could have escaped scrutiny in this situation. I went to his campaign website. I quickly forgot what had led me there. My attention was captured by some of his writings, some of which I found disturbing. One in particular surprised me, accusing the "elitist, secular Left" of conspiring to kill Christmas. It did not smack of measured reasoning. While not outrageous, they are a worry, perhaps because they are on his website at all, and indicate that he feels no need to be more selective. If this is, in his opinion, his best stuff, putting his best face forward for a presidential bid, what is he least proud of? There are other documents that I found odd, but this was the most recent and therefor at the top of the page. I will be educating myself about all the candidates, but he has moved to the top of my list.

Sent by Dee | 10:17 PM ET | 01-11-2008

You are wasting our time with the BS. Dr. Paul treats all people the same.

Sent by steven orrange | 10:45 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I don't believe that I'm on "The Fringe". I've been a conservative Republican for over 30 years and never once made a racist remark. My lovely wife, the best woman I've ever had the opportunity to meet, is mulatto. I believe racism to be one of the despicable things a human can be. I also give my support to Ron Paul and will continue to do so because he is alone in Washington DC representing me and all Americans, regardless of their beliefs. He, almost alone, is championing the idea that our Government was created to protect the Rights of the people, period! Read the Preamble to the Constitution, it says right there what job the Government was created to do. Can you name any other elected official in DC that is doing that job? So, I will continue to support Ron Paul until the last vote is counted (and I do hope the votes are counted). I also have seen the error of my ways and will make attonement. At the end of this election cycle, I will then give up 30 years of being a true-blue Republican and switch allegiance to either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, because I now see that both the Repubs and Demos are the "Bought and Paid for Parties". I will never again have anything to do with them again and will give my time and money to supporting those running for election who are true to the Constitution of this great Republic.

Sent by Steven J. Grycel | 10:47 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Newsletter with his name on it that he didn't run or edit? Why does that sound familliar? Oh yeah, the blimp and the moneybombs. Ron Paul is not a racist.

Sent by Leanne | 10:58 PM ET | 01-11-2008

how is it that you folks at npr receive our federal tax dollars, MY federal tax dollars, yet right here you state "All comments will be read, but not all will be posted." So...you reserve the right to censor my views based solely upon whether or not you deem them to be politically correct? That's disgusting.

Why don't you also run a story about why FOX news didn't allow Dr. Paul to appear in last Sunday's forum? Why don't you give Dr. Paul one ounce of at least neutral publicity? Why was it that - the night of the Iowa Caucus - Robert Siegel & Co. only mentioned Dr. Paul in derisive sneers?

Oh wait...yeah, the Constitution (if properly followed with Ron Paul at the helm) would never allow for the US Congress to appropriate US taxpayer funds for NPR...you'd all be out of work...how convenient that you attempt to smear him!

Sent by Steve | 10:59 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I have been a libertarian all my voting life (15 years) and we do not believe in any sort of violence; except of course, self defense. We do not adhere to any sort of violence. Our heart beats to the tune of the constitution and individual liberties. The main point being that we DO NOT BELIEVE IN HARMING OTHERS, and if someone harms any other person, that person will pay a just punishment. That is the true Libertarian belief. Just so everyone understands? Live and Let Live.

Sent by Kirk Roberts | 11:13 PM ET | 01-11-2008

"All comments will be read, bit not all will be posted." It appears to me that NPR is posting a wide range of comments and opinions on this. I'm sure the comment above is so they can avoid posting comments with obsene language.

In regards to the comments about tax dollars, well, they're MY tax dollars as well and I like having them spent on NPR.

Sent by don | 11:32 PM ET | 01-11-2008

I'm Jewish, I support Ron Paul, and I find these remarks very disturbing. I back him anyway, because when you get down to it, there is really no question what he will do once elected. No powerful corporate interests are bankrolling his campaign, and he has no history of voting any other way than for limited government and individual freedom, all within the confines of the Constitution. I don't really believe he is an anti-Semite or any other type of racist, but even if he does hold those disgusting beliefs, he has the credibility of 20 years'-worth of good work in Congress. He still gets my vote.

Sent by Mason | 11:41 PM ET | 01-11-2008

Yawn....snore....

Sent by Winston Parsons | 11:41 PM ET | 01-11-2008

NPR:
I was disappointed that you never mentioned Ron Paul, ever.
Like every media outlet, it seemed your goal was to treat him like he didn't exist.
Regardless of where you want to pin blame, we all know these are not his opinions. They have not ever been reflected in his words, actions, or behavior.
He has, however, presented brilliant ideas in regards to our country, and cured the apathy of hundreds of thousands of people, remarkably, mostly young people.
The fact that you never found THAT noteworthy, is shameful.
I don't feel betrayed by Ron Paul, I feel betrayed by what I thought was a trustworthy, unbiased, news source. You are not. I will no longer be donating or tuning in, back to AM 1080 for me.

Sent by meg | 11:55 PM ET | 01-11-2008

NPR, I have been a listener for about as long as I can remember. I feel like I grew up with you. I have been a consistent contributor during pledge drives for years. No more! Your coverage of Ron Paul has been FOX Newslike. Unfortunately, I now consider you part of the mainstream media.
So long,
James Austin
Flagstaff, AZ

Sent by James Austin | 12:13 AM ET | 01-12-2008

How can anyone run for President of the United States and not mention the overwhelming power of the Israeli-First, Jewish extremists in American politics and media. Everyone in Washington, D.C. and in practically the entire world knows that the political fundraising process, Presidential policy and Congressional process is firmly under the control of the Zionists who are using the United States as its worldwide hitman, a role that is doing us irreparable harm. Jewish extremists are the political fundraisers and power brokers and they also dominate the mass media, the single greatest influence in politics.

Sent by bob D | 12:16 AM ET | 01-12-2008

The ironic thing is that if Ron Paul really were a racist, he'd be way more popular. Appealing to the white communities latent and overt racism has always worked for Republicans, in the 1988 George H.W. Bush's campaign WON on racist campaigning. Segregationist Strom Thurmond only recently left the Senate, voted in endlessly by the whites of North Carolina. Segregationist nostaligist Trent Lott is still in the Senate, thanks to the crackers in Mississippi.

Racism sells in most Republican fiefdom's. What does NOT sell to the republican base is a promise to free and pardon and restore voting rights to millions of African-Americans convicted of peaceful drug offenses. That is truly the greatest thing to restore families in the African-American community that any man or President could do for the black culture and race in the USA.

For the factual record however, Ron Paul has never been accused of saying a racist remark to anyone in his 20 years in Congress. There are no witnesses anywhere who have ever heard Ron Paul utter a remark that was racist in any way. He has never said a racist word in the Congressional Record nor has anyone ever recorded a racist remark from Dr. Paul.

No one in the Black Caucus in Congress has ever heard Ron Paul utter a racist remark.

No black person has ever made the claim Dr. Paul was ever unkind or racist in any way, and this man has led a very public life from 1974 to 2008, 31 years!

If you have watched Dr. Paul, you know he has never adhered to any racist beliefs, actions, words or statements, and no one has ever heard him utter anything like a racist remark.

After 31 years, if no one can say they heard it, or videotaped it, or were victim of it, then it doesn't exist. The "racist" label cannot apply.

Not only is Dr. Paul no racist, but quite the contrary, he is truly the presidential candidate that cares most deeply about African-Americans, moreso than any other candidate, without question.

Currently there are 600,000 African-Americans in US jails and prisons for crimes under the draconian drug laws, laws that Dr. Paul has always opposed, voted against and condemns today in his Presidential bid. Dr. Paul is well aware in his television speeches that African-Americans are being punished and targeted in the federal drug war.

Dr. Paul would pardon all non-violent drug offenders, release them from prison, restore their voting rights, and stop jailing any further African-Americans for their lifestyle. Over an 8 year Presidency, Ron Paul would save up to 4 million African-Americans from the awful fate that awaits hundreds of thousands of African-Americans each year!

Consider not just four million black men and women spared excruciating jail sentences for their non-violent association with drugs, but their family members, an additional 15 ??? 20 million African-Americans, would not have their families torn asunder by these pernicious and unconstitutional drug laws that act as a toxic combination of the Jim Crow laws of the old south melded with the Inquisition and the witch-burnings.

Ron Paul will keep black families together by ending Prohibition and the federal war on drugs. Ron Paul as President will liberate and emancipate more African-Americans than even Lincoln did in 1863, in a way that Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, John McCain, and all the others cannot and will not.

Sent by Marc Scott Emery | 12:18 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I use to listen and watch Fox programing, that was my morning drive time and television viewing. Now I prefer NPR and PBS. Perhaps that should change also. Advertising dollars are important, donations are important, but is federal funding worth giving a boot steep behind Fox news? Please do not make me a breif visitor to your programing. Let the people choose where they put their vote and what type of media they want with their own money. Kinda of a scary concept, but in a free society it can work. Choice can help with your work, we have paid our tax dollars and made donations. So get to work or I will leave.

Sent by Paul Dakota | 12:45 AM ET | 01-12-2008

This blogger? Here's his story. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p hp?storyId=9920267 A born and raised Canadian trying to mix himself up in American Politics

Sent by Valeria | 12:48 AM ET | 01-12-2008

NPR,
Judicial Watch recently published a top 10 list of the most corrupt politicians in 2007. I think you'll find more than flimsy associations if you pursue those story lines. I am surprised that this decade old accusation that Ron Paul immediately addressed when it was brought to his attention would even constitue news at NPR. My wife and I make annual donations to our local idea station in Richmond VA. I need to reexamine what constitutes the definition of a worthy non profit organization before I take out my check book.

Sent by David | 12:56 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Frankly, if given the choice between a candidate who used to be a little liberal with the free speech issue or a bunch of elitist warmongers, it's still Ron Paul by a mile.

Sent by DRUMS of WAR | 1:04 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I've been a faithful listener to NPR, and I had to recheck the website title when someone mentioned your name.

What kind of idiot are you letting write your articles? Let's see some evidence! Give us some quotations of Paul being racist. It's funny that the only citation you gave was of Paul taking responsibility for not being watchful enough.

I've consistently looked to NPR radio for great coverage and good analysis, but this is ridiculous. Let's see some proof instead of some bozo's ranting.

Sent by Matthias | 1:08 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I'll take Dr. Paul's record over NPR's any day of the week. Puhleeez, 10 year old story, and no mention of Dr. Paul's voting record. Maybe you should go with the byline Balanced and Fair, I don't think it taken yet.

Sent by James Nolan | 1:26 AM ET | 01-12-2008

It is sad that this controversy, and not the important ideas regarding the war, the economy, and civil liberties that Dr. Paul has brought to the table are the current subject of discussion. These newsletters are regrettable, small-minded expressions of opinions Ron has to my knowledge never endorsed. He was wrong to have let them be published,doubly so because several of the statements in question are diametrically opposed to what Ron has said for years, which is that we all should be treated as individuals under the law, not as groups, and that individual rights are paramount in a free society.

But think of how far we have come in this country in just a few short years in terms of race relations, the number of minorities entering the professions, politics, the economic rise of the black middle class, etc.

It wasn't too long ago that such bigoted bluster passed for reasoned discourse, to say nothing of policy (see FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, or Truman's military segregation.)

Fifteen years ago, the kinds of inaccurate statements found in some of the newsletters would be considered in many circles to be just so much "bar talk," today this kind of statement is considered horribly, viciously racist.

Yet Dr. Paul took responsibility for the newsletters, and repudiated those words, and that kind of thinking a long time ago.

I daresay, none of us are angels, but many of us could learn from Ron Paul.

Sent by Vince Daliessio | 1:37 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Wow, now the only thing I fear more than our government is Paul supporters. Talk about tin hats!

Sent by Kerry | 1:44 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Dr. Ron Paul is the TRUTH and FAIR !! Also the unfairly treated Black,s only Hope!!! He wants too get drug laws repealed so all can get out of jail for non violent crimes NOBODY else but DR PAUL cares SO YOU decide ??? And he is not a CFR member nor pro CFR!! So line up for your microchip if you don,t vote DR.Paul He defends FREEDOM!!! Our next true VOICE in Office GO RON GO

Sent by Butch | 1:46 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Sadly,even if these accusations are true,he is still the best candidate for President.A vote for any other candidate ,with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and perhaps John Edwards,is a vote for more of the same."plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

Sent by B.McManus | 1:58 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Who is your keeper? Why do you report like this...like Fox News Neo-Cons. Let's stick to the ISSUES. Why don't you report regarding the election fraud in New Hampshire? Oh, maybe because that sort of thing is old news. Ron Paul 08!

Sent by truthdseeds | 2:01 AM ET | 01-12-2008

So let me get this straight. Ron Paul is a man who preaches racism and homophobia yet for some odd reason his politics and political positions do not reflect his ideology? Is that right? So when he states that he is not against gay marriages because he believes in individual should have the freedom to marry who they want to, where exactly does the homophobia come in? I'm confused. Can one of you Neo-Con shills help me out?

Sent by Mark S. Gonney | 2:34 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I have been an avid listener to NPR for many, many years???.actually since the desert storm farce???exclusively, but throughout this entire 2008 election coverage you have lost me. Regrettably I have witnessed your predisposition for less than a handful of presidential candidates???the rest, either getting mere lip service or nothing at all.

Then???on top of that - you have totally dropped any objective coverage of the war in Iraq and attempting to convince us daily that ???the surge??? has worked???yeah right! Oh???I forgot ???polls show that the economy is the ???top concern???.

The facts are that NPR???s top stories spotlight on the same plastic packaged establishment bunch that big corporate media like Fox, ABC and CNN have attempted desperately to force down our throats. Oh???shucks, I slipped once again ??? these are the ???front runners??????oh yes, ???the top tier candidates??? ??? how could I have been so remiss and think for myself without your help? Of course we know what you say is accurate because of the ???scientific political polling??? you give us.

NPR please listen carefully ???

HILLARY CLINTON and JOHN McCAIN are not candidates for CHANGE!!

They are the worst examples of the entrenched morass called Washington DC.

Hear us ???We want change ??? real change and the candidates who actually offer that ??? like a Ron Paul and others you haven???t given time of day. I am really outraged when I have hardly heard Ron Paul???s name on NPR let alone given any fair coverage of his campaign, his philosophy and accomplishments ???and then yellow-press only?

This politically motivated smear attempt on Ron Paul by media is just the last straw for me. Keep your melodramatic teary eyed candidate, keep your Mr. 100 year Iraq ??? keep your opinions, keep your polls???I???m checking out.

Don???t expect anymore funding coming from me and the next sound you hear is me turning my radio off??????CLICK????????????????????????????????????!!!

Sent by TAO | 2:51 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Researching Congressman Paul these past few months, it just seems that his inborn character is that of a person who sees the good in everyone, therefore, trusts everyone. He did mention in an interview that at the time the newletters came out he was just to busy to edit every single article, after all putting out the newsletter was a side interest not his profession. I applaud Dr. Paul for his integrity and courage to apologize and take responsibility for the articles.
Now, lets move on and get him elected as the next President of the United States!

Sent by Linda Takano | 3:09 AM ET | 01-12-2008

If we're to believe our upstanding media outlets, then surely Ron Paul is the most racist Republican candidate running in this election--that much is clear. My one question...where were media darlings (and ostensible racial freedom-fighters) Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson the night of Sept 27, 2007? I can assure you that they were not in attendance at the All-American Presidential Forum that was held at Morgan State University. Had they attended this debate that was geared towards a black & brown audience, they might've heard a white man, Ron Paul, share his ideas on how we might achieve liberty, freedom & respect for ALL citizens of this nation.

Shame on you NPR!

Sent by Thomas Braun | 4:47 AM ET | 01-12-2008

It breaks my heart to see Dr. Paul go through this abuse, but he is the first really moral Republican I have seen run for the party nomination in my lifetime. I will do whatever I can within my humble ability to help.

Sent by Dave | 4:51 AM ET | 01-12-2008

This is a world that slanders truth for a living--the elite do this for no other reason than to plunder the wealth of the masses for themselves..it is their manifest destiny. Can indiscretion be found in Ron Paul for failing to edit a newsletter that others published in his name? Was Martin Luther King Jr unlawful in his acts of civil disobedience? Was it blasphemous for Jesus to counter the Sanhedrin? The authors of the affirming answers to all of these questions are all the same. Am I suggesting that Ron Paul is comparable to leaders such as MLK or Jesus(?)--only to the extent that his pursuit of truth drove the deceivers of this world to action.

Sent by Thomas Braun | 5:02 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I would believe these accusations if people were coming out of the woodwork to back up those claims.

So far there is not a one.

Ron Paul remains the only candidate on either side whose policy on the War on Drugs is in fact anti-racist as that misguide policy systematically goes after blacks.

Sent by Jason | 5:17 AM ET | 01-12-2008

yet another attempt to discredit Dr. Paul.... If we were in the business of bringing up dirt on everyone ALL of the other candidates have a much deeper suitcase of problems, corruption and mistakes.... this is just another ploy of our "IN DIRE NEED OF REPLACING" media, to eliminate RON PAUL.... this did nothing but bring his supporters closer together... and raise awarness for future media attacks during the campaign trail..... AMERICA NEEDS AN OVERHAUL & RON PAUL is just the mechanic we need!......

Sent by shane | 5:20 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Is this what NPR focuses on regarding Ron Paul? How about his message of freedom, peace and prosperity backed by his unequaled record of congressional voting consistency?
NPR, you're pathetic !!!

Sent by JG | 6:25 AM ET | 01-12-2008

"America cannot tolerate, must not tolerate a President that would stop the war on drugs."

The War on Drugs is just yet another shining example of exactly the sort of expensive failed government policy that Ron Paul would eliminate.

When I watch the other candidates speak, I see their lips moving, but nothing that comes out of their mouth makes sense. Ron Paul is the only logical choice.

The media is obviously censoring Dr. Paul. Thank God for the internet.

Sent by independant in MN | 7:23 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Ron Paul is a race-baiiting bigot. We all knew that. He's an ultra-conservative Republican.

Sent by Mark Freeley | 7:30 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Racism, sexism, and all other forms of groupism. Ron Paul is against them all. Do your homework - and read the dang Constitution. That's what this revolution is all about.

I made it easy for you:

http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/USConstitutionBasic.html

Sent by John Kosanke | 7:51 AM ET | 01-12-2008

The Neo con's (E.G: The New Republic) strategy is to trash honest people so that voters focus on their victims and not on them. Why did Fox News not invite RP to their debate the day just before the debate? Why did the New Republic waited to publish this article the day of the primaries in New Hampshire? When they fear any candidate might have a chase to win or to have a message they think is dangerous, they trash them. They did this with Mc Cain on the elections of 2000, accusing him of not caring for the POW, yet this guy was a prisoner of war for 5 years and had a broken back. Again with Kerry and the swift boats. At least Kerry was in Vietnam in battle and Bush a chicken hawk that had volunteered in the national reserve so sporadically that his commander didn???t even remember seeing Bush. And now Ron Paul, whose voting record speaks by itself, voted against the Patriot Act, against the Iraq war, against any unbalanced budget, civil rights champion, etc is being trashed by them. Their motus operandi is throw us much mud as you can that some will stick.
And yet we don???t seem to learn from these old tricks. I find it very bizarre that just when Bush is visiting Israel and the day before the elections in New Hampshire all of a sudden the Iranians are attacking us. Now the commander of the boat says he???s not sure the threat came from the Iranians in the radio.
America wake up, the only way to stop these coward neo cons is not falling for their tricks. When will we learn?

Sent by Lucia Schmitz | 8:11 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I've got it! There is no doubt in my military mind: Ron Paul can't disclose the guy 's identity who really wrote the newsletters, 'cuz they were under heavy enemy fire in 'Nam see and they did the bayonet slice on the palm blood brothers vow so even though it means the Presidency he can't betray his friend because he's so moral and loyal, see...

Sent by bobbyusbombs | 8:43 AM ET | 01-12-2008

You know you've got a great candidate when the best his detractors can come up with is quotes from a fifteen year old newsletter taken out of context and written by someone else.

Ron Paul's entire platform is a constitutional federal government and everyone here knows it. To pretend that Ron Paul is a racist is absurd. If you no longer want to have a Constitution -- if you would rather that federal politicians make up laws as they go along -- be forthright enough to admit it. Trying to associate constitutionalism with racism is pathetic.

Sent by Zephram Stark | 8:52 AM ET | 01-12-2008

That is my point exactly- that the media has been either silent or insulting on Ron Paul, now...he is in the media. The Washington Post (and others) may be going too far. (see the letter in the Post January 12, 2008 section "Free for All)")

As a little background- I am not a teanager, a conspiracy theorist, nor a "web nut." I am a 55 year old veteran, an employed taxpayer, and a family oriented person with children and grandchildren. My sons have never been arrested, much less for killing a dog or carrying a weapon on a commercial aircraft. My family has not been clouded with rumors of multiple indescretions. I have not had to promote a fund for "legal defense". I do not spend money that I do not have. I plan and manage debts that I must endure, for example to buy a home.

Neither, to my knowledge has Dr. Paul. My point was that the media has ignored his accomplishments and selected dubious soundbites to cast discredit on his positions. I ENCOURAGE everyone to read Dr. Paul original words. His statement on September 12, 2001 and his statement on Racism in 2002.

The reason I want to talk to people in Texas, is that they are more familiar with his long, steadfast record. The voters have reaffirmed their support by keeping him in office. Their meet-ups have thousands of members. I also watch a meetup in South Dakota, because they are in the "heartland".

I read the international news. In Great Britain, there seems a reoccurring theme that Dr. Paul cannot even get his news in the paper or out in front of the people

While I live near DC and the Pentagon, I feel in some ways that the coverage available locally is even less balanced than that of other parts of the country. I encourage supporters to stay involved, and fight for fair reporting.

I feel a strong need to continue in any way I can to support Dr. Paul, his message, and the constitution. V/r Dianne

Sent by Dianne | 9:16 AM ET | 01-12-2008

looks like national id cards are on the way, its stalled in congress, head of homeland security says its what americans want, and said only terrorist and other crooks would be the ones who would oppose this.. lmao let me ask , does this man speak for YOU.. time to wake up and see whats going on , I think america is in the wrong hands, time for all ( TRUE AMERICAN PATIOTS TO STAND UP AND TAKE ( YOUR ) COUNTRY BACK, WE CAN DO THIS IF WE STAND TOGETHER, GET THE WORD OUT, VOTE RON PAUL 08 )

Sent by truamerican | 9:23 AM ET | 01-12-2008

A week ago David Frum wrote a promotional piece in the National Post (Canada), later reposted at AEI's web site, promoting Mayor Guiliani and pretending that Dr. Paul doesn't exist.

Even more egregiously, on Thursday the Economist posted an article once more promoting their horse (McCain) and put up a chart of all the Republican candidates except Paul.

So while the neo-cons and heavy right wing is trying to ignore him, the core establishment left-wing and American liberal press is trying to smear him.

I smell two different kinds of fear. Fascinating.

Sent by John M | 9:57 AM ET | 01-12-2008

I have to admit I'm surprised to hear about these newsletters and was really hoping that something like this wouldn't come up in connection with him BUT it's going to take a hell of a lot more than some news story to change my opinion of him. As RP says: it just doesn't sound like him! Period.

Sent by Don | 9:58 AM ET | 01-12-2008

with all the Paul supporters adamantly stating that Paul did not write those newsletters I'd like to ask a few questions: 1) how do you know he didn't? just because he says he didn't means nothing, you do know that people can lie, don't you? 2) who did? 3) why would anyone write a newsletter in Paul's name that wasn't sanctioned by him? 4) if it WAS sanctioned by Paul, why didn't he keep those words out of it? if he's this irresponsible with a simply newsletter, how would he ever be a responsible president?

Sent by Nate | 10:09 AM ET | 01-12-2008

Wow...I believe Reagan was called a racist at one time. The reason twenty year old newsletters are so important is because they potray Ron Paul as being racist and he has a clean record. These people have been writting these stories since the beginning of the campaign. Why? Because Ron Paul's message if heard would carry him to the White House. The media and sitting government doesn't want that.

Sent by Bob | 10:20 AM ET | 01-12-2008

These open a box where we, young savvy Americans will do the investigative job of digging into Mitt, McCain and Huckabee past.
This is going to get very interesting, pulling out Mistress, unethical business dealing as well as kick backs transactions not to mention racism comments as well.

Be prepare the fun is just starting, they want to play dirty then the young well educated college students which support Ron Paul will be a force to reckon with.

Sent by roger | 10:24 AM ET | 01-12-2008

The sad truth is people will believe whatever they want...that is why we have today's media, to wrap it up in the flavor u want to believe...tabloid journalism for those that need it. The graet thing about America, is that when the economy goes to the dumps...we will still choose a politician for president instead of someone that speaks the truth. Everytime a good man speaks truth to power, you have a poliical machine to bring him down. Sad but rue....seeing is believing...I doubt Ron Paul ever said those things...and I'm sure fringe groups have indeed become part of his supporters (a little minority at that), but the real issue is the fact that ron paul sppeks truth to us, and most of us don' want to listen. We want the cake, and eat it too...sad days for america approaching if we don't think, before we act.

who do I like so far? Edwrds, Ron Paul, obama....I've never voted, or supported any of the clowns calling demselves my repres