So, what does Ron Paul really think about Blacks, Jews, and Gays? Will we ever really know.

 Well, recent information revealed about Ron Paul, showing him to be a bigot in sheep's clothing underscores the importance of us (the electorate) doing our homework to find out who these people really are, what corporations are sponsoring them, and sharing that information with as many people as we can.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca#.Tu9CCUIgpAs.facebook

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?nopager=1


http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-suddenly-doesnt-want-talk-reporters-racist-233746279.html

He either said those things, or allowed others to say those things under his byline because he agreed with the views presented. You don't let others use your byline if you don't agree with their views or opinions because, as editor/owner/publisher, you have an option to print things in your newsletter written by others. Whether you agree with their opinions won't be an issue as long as you gave the author of the commentary the proper credit, and you print a "disclaimer" saying that the "views expressed in the following commentary are not necessarily the views of the staff of the XYZ Gazette."  That way, 20 years later, when you are running for president and a reporter asks you about said newsletters; you can say that you printed divergent opinions in the hopes of fostering open discussion on controversial issues. That it was your job to make the newsletter worth reading, even if you didn't agree with what got printed in a specific newsletter. And that's what you did. Now, an on the ball reporter would notice that this answer still didn't provide the information they were looking for, and may still press you on the issue of whether you agreed with the bigoted opinions printed there, in which case, you'd still be on the hook for an answer to that. You'd still have a chance that said reporter wouldn't notice that you never didn't tell them what they really were looking to find out....

We have to conclude that he agreed with those statements because he did not preface these commentaries with any such disclaimer, or cite anyone other than himself as the author of the commentaries in question. As the person in charge, he is ultimately responsible for anything that was published in the newsletter in any case.  So, like the captain of the ship, he has to take responsibility for the things printed in those newsletters "on his watch," even if he didn't write them.

Walking out on the interview does not bode well for him to disavow himself of the views expressed, even though he stated as much.


12/22: A quick additional note 15 things Ron Paul would eliminate as unconstitutional if he were president:
http://front.moveon.org/the-15-things-ron-paul-would-eliminate-as-unconstitutional/?rc=fb.fan2 

As you can see from the age of some of the video, unlike Gingrich and Romney, he has, without shame, been consistent; although some folks would say consistently wrong. And like Tarot cards or a palm reader, there is always something he will say that you like to hear. It is the balance of the message that you need to pay attention to.  Based on how consistent these videos show him to be on every other issue he has ever raised; it would be very hard to convince most anyone that he no longer holds the views espoused in his newsletters published in the same time period as some of these videos were taken.


Another update: Looks like he has joined the "Flip-flopper" brigade....


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-21/ron-paul-racist-newsletters/52147878/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29