I would consider this beating a dead horse, but various encounters have underscored to me that a lot of folks who only having passing knowledge of this story have not actually looked at the newsletters in question and usually seem to assume one of two things (or perhaps both): that a) there was nothing especially objectionable in the newsletters, and/or b) that it was quite easy to tell that Paul was not the author.
In the interest of the dissemination of information, here are more examples very TNR: TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters.
The bottom line continues to be: either Paul wrote the newsletters or he allowed them to be written in his name. In either event, he owed the electorate more of an explanation that a simple disavowal and a claim to be unfamiliar with the contents.
For those truly interesting in evaluating the situation for themselves, here are my previous posts on the subject:
-
Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem
-
More on Paul and the Newsletters
-
A Bit More About the Ron Paul Newsletters
-
If You Need an Example of the Ron Paul Newsletter
Plus, I would recommend Doug Mataconis’ posts: Ron Paul Doesn’t Want To Talk About His Newsletters Anymore and Ad For Ron Paul’s Newsletter Forecast Race War.
I sincerely think that anyone who really wants to form an informed opinion on this subject should take a look at the evidence. On the other hand, those who want to rant about this all being a hit piece on Paul can have at it in the comments.
