If you're on this site and you know about Ron Paul, then you probably know about his less than stellar history with racism. One of the most straight-forward examples of this comes from Ron Paul's infamous newsletter. However, it appears that these excerpts may only be the tip of the racist iceberg.
On a recent episode of "Tucker," Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic said that "What we thought were just isolated examples back in 1996, now, we're going to see, were part of a two decade long carreer, just full of this stuff." Kirchick claims that Ron Paul once referred to Martin Luther King as a "gay pedophile," and intends to come forward with his findings in the near future. A video clip from this segment can be found here. Thanks to Reason.com for the heads up:
Kirchick, whose story for TNR (along with screen-shots of the newsletters themselves) are scheduled to go up at "tomorrow afternoon," said that Paul "called black people animals," and spoke at a "pro-secessionist conference." In teeing up the segment, Carlson, who was skeptical about some of Kirchick's claims, reported that the Paul campaign has apologized for the content of the newsletters to both Kirchick and Carlson.
Contrary to what the Paultards will tell you, but the original accusations regarding Ron Paul have never been "debunked," they have only been denied, and only 5 years after the story first became public. The Ron Paulogists will recite their talking points about how Ron Paul hired a ghostwriter, and how Ron Paul was completely ignorant of the contents, and how Ron Paul somehow managed to fire the ghost writer despite being completely ignorant -- most of which has already been addressed on dailykos, and in my own in-depth FAQ on the subject. The most damning piece of evidence piece of evidence against Ron Paul has always been Ron Paul's own responses in 1996, which have never been given an even remotely plausible explaination.
So what does this mean for Ron Paul's campaign? Kirchick's revelation isn't likely to convince the hardcore Paultards, who already believe that their messiah is infallible. On the contrary, the extreme nature of these comments will only convince them now, more than ever, that it really was a ghostwriter. Any future content will be dismissed in kind.
However, Kirchick's story is important for three reasons. First, it will help bring this scandal back into the mainstream media, where it's been dormant for the past 12 years. People who are considering Ron Paul due to his stance on Iraq and drugs will now be forced to reconsider. Second, it will put more pressure on Ron Paul to disclose his archives to the public in the name of transparency, which he initially promised to do, but never delivered on. Finally, it will force Ron Paul to clarify what he meant when he said that he had taken a "moral responsibility" for the content of his newsletter, even while denying that he had actually written them. If the racism was really as vile and as widespread as Kirchick suggest, then Ron Paul appears all the more incompetent for not addressing this early. If we can't call Ron Paul out on being incompetent, then what exactly does "moral responsibility" entail?
The most laughable thing about this is the fact that Ron Paul still sees himself as an authority on dealing with racism at the national level, when he can't even deal with the blatant racism that happens under his own name, with his own permission. Even in a best case scenario, Ron Paul can't even handle an 8-page monthly newsletter. What in the world makes him think that he can handle an entire country?