Why the cheap mention of the newsletters? I accept his explanation. Why not focus on the issues. The real problems of this country. The ones that only Ron Paul seems to be addressing. These are the reasons people support him not because we are blind fools on the fringe we are the mainstream. I have a business and employees. Never till now have I seriously participated in any election. I always felt is was rigged but now with the internet we have a voice and away to be heard. We also have a real candidate that is speaking to our concerns. Not all of us blindly follow the MSM for information or how to think. We have our own minds and they are highly educated and experienced.

Even before the December 16 money bomb, I heard suggestions for a day for the next. Quickly there became an agreement on MLK day. This was not something dreamed up in the last week.

Go Ron Go! I'll be putting more than my 2 cents in!

Ron Paul for President 2008!

Ron Paul is a man of principles who takes his orders from the Constitution. The Constitution's lessons can save America. Elect Ron Paul to be our President.

Great article. Ron Paul is gaining momentum!

If you want your future articles to be seen by even more Ron Paul supporters and others following the Ron Paul revolution you yourself can easily post a link to your articles at www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com.

Wrong Matt, this fundraiser "money bomb" for Ron Paul was not planned on the "heels" of the TNR newsletter rehashment, but many weeks before the 12th hour release by this Rudy Giuliani loving magazine TNR.

Let freedom ring!

MLK opposed the Vietnam War and Ron Paul is following in his footsteps with our new imperial adventures. Sorry, warhawks, the racism smears just aren't working.

Dr. Ron Paul is the modern leader of the civil rights movement. He clearly sees through the War on Drugs and its ineffectiveness. He has been targeted because he carries a powerful message and because he CAN win...if not then why is he being attacked while largely ignored in the mainstream media?

Dr. Paul makes me proud to be a Republican :)
P.S. Not a neo-conservative ;)

Why is Ron Paul the only candidate with actual passionate supporters? It seems like everyone is voting against a candidate, or against an idea. Ron Paulers seem to be the only ones voting FOR an idea.

Ron Paul is a racist? really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAWClI8zsH4

No one has accused Ron Paul of having written racist or homophobic comments in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Even Kirchik admits its not 30 years of vile statements, its 5-6 years of statements, that Kirchik doesnt even know if Ron Paul wrote.
To quote Kirchik:
"Then once he was out of congress, starting in the late 1980's, thats when you see the real racial and homophobic animus."
Outside that 6 year interval, even Kirchik admits, the newsletters are "...like your regular letter to a constituent that alot of congressman send out." Lets hear the whole truth!

All quotes from Kirchik interview http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17990685

Dr. Paul is generating excitement! The momentum is building. The song of freedom is on the wind.
Peace, prosperity, Paul.

Yep, let's not call this reporting when you try to shoehorn some cheap jabs in there. The Ron Paul campaign stand on it's merits of ideals and has never done stuff because the media portrays it in a bad light, or for whatever other reason.

The only reason the money bomb in on MLK day is because the spirit of the RP campaign closely matches the ideals of MLK.

GO RP = GO AMERICA!

As long as we're quoting Kirchik, let's do it right.

"At this point, it seems that the only people still defending Ron Paul are the openly bigoted or the comically credulous. For the former, the revelation that Paul had (at best, negligent at worst, complicit) involvement in the publishing of and profiting from paranoid and bigoted newsletters for over two decades neatly confirms the reasons why they had chosen to support the Texas Congressman presidential campaign in the first place. For the latter, no amount of evidence will ever convince them that “Dr. No” is anything less than some saintly, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” caricature."

Ron Paul has been a fixture in extremist conspiracy-theory politics for decades. There's a reason why he attracts Klansmen as organizers.

I think most well-meaning Paul supporters project on the man what they want him to be rather than what he actually is. That's understandable. What's not understandable is ignoring the absolute mountain of evidence that shows that this man has made a career out of appealing (both openly and covertly) to bigots.

The newsletters issue has been flushed out over the ten terms the good Dr has been in Congress. This issue is now simply a distraction technique to undermine his increasing popularity. One needs to see the BS for what it is. The big corporate and government interests which are tapping $1T (thats 1000 Billion) per year will do just about anything to protect the status quo. This money is coming out of our pockets with little or no benefit to us, the common folks. Time to wake up folks. We can do this the easy way with good leadership, or we can wait till the banksters and politicians bleed us dry and induce another great depression, it's our choice. Go Ron Go.

I came to US from former USSR and I could not believe what I saw, - Socialism. Ron Paul is the only one who tries to change it into Capitalism.
Wake-up people, help him out.

Mr. Shaw then what are you for a fascist government or were you paid to discredit as I assume. Please, DONATE! DONATE! If you are tired of the pundits, special interests, and talking heads telling you how you should vote. At least read what Ron Paul is about from him? Happy Martin Luther King Day in his spirit and in the name of freedom. Thank you.

You got me: I am for a fascist government, and I was paid to discredit Ron Paul on the influential City Pages blog, which is widely regarded by both the CFR and Trilateral Commission.

Also, I wrote all those nasty, bigoted newsletters and hired that Klan member to run his campaign in that Michigan county, sent him a campaign contribution from the Storm Front guy, etc. All me.

Look, I've been following Ron Paul's political career for more than 10 years. Most of what I know about him comes straight from his own publications. The newsletters are the most obviously damning evidence, but Paul has a long public record that also involves endorsing conspiracy theories and courting far-right racist groups.

This is not to say I don't understand the appeal. I do. I agree with Paul about certain issues, like getting out of Iraq, backing off from the disastrous War on Drugs, and legalizing online poker. A stopped clock is right twice a day. The fact that he's the banner-carrier for these issues is awful for everyone, especially the moderates and independents suckered in.

He's a nut. If you want to vote for him, that's fine, but don't kid yourself about voting for a racist kook.

Ron Paul is an easy candidate for everyone to support - Democrat, Republican, independent - because he simply believes that the Constitution sets the ground rules. Here's a truly ethical man with economic expertise who isn't going to use wedge issues and inspiring but empty promises. I've studied government and politics all my life and here's a presidential candidate that finally tells it like it's taught in the classroom. It's time to demand much more from our president - the Democrats and Republicans are reciting the same lines they've given for years: change, hope, outside the Beltway, not a Washington insider... we've heard it all before. Ron Paul is the only one that has not flip-flopped, voted against the Iraq War, gives states the primary right to govern, will lessen bureaucracy, and improve trade relations worldwide. He's a long-time member of the House of Representative, presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He's also a doctor and has been married for 50 years. If you're going to vote for someone according to their record, instead of their promises, Ron Paul has the most consistent voting records. In this time of economic turmoil we need someone that will govern by the principles of the Constitution and a sound fiscal policy.

Paul-bot go!

Ms. Brady,

I agree with you that the Constitution is a very important document against which all actions of the government should be weighed. But to believe that Ron Paul's views all flow downriver from the Constitution is just naive.

As an example, the Constitution provides no guidance on the question of when human life begins. Yet somehow Ron Paul has already made his mind up on this matter; he believes (and legislates on the belief that) life begins at conception.

I'd wager a shiny new nickel it was an older document than the Constitution that put that idea in his head.

Shaw, you know I love you (and for the record, I don't believe you're getting paid to discredit Paul, though that wouldn't be a bad gig), but: I think it's unfair to suggest Paul is in cahoots with the Klan or the Nazis or other such swine. Yes, these scumfucks have gravitated toward Paul and yes, the very un-P.C. comments in the newsletter are cause for concern and yes, Paul has made scant efforts to distance himself from said swine. But the latter is less an indication of foaming-at-the mouth bigotry and more a reflection of hands-off libertarianism, of which Paul has long embraced. Quoth Andrew Sullivan, renowned homosexual at The Atlantic:

"When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn't in his nature to adopt other people's views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn't just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn't have the instinct to police anyone else's views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don't think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better."

Snyders,

You know you're my boy and all, but if "libertarian" means "anyone around me can do whatever they want in my name and I won't criticize them," then I've lived the last 30 years of my life backwards.

I'm not saying Paul is "in cahoots with the Nazis"; I'm saying he's the candidate that the radical racist right likes, and there are reasons for this that any reasonable person should find disturbing.

First, let me define my position precisely, because I'm not suggesting anything -- I'm saying it straight out.

I'm saying that Ron Paul's base has, for years, been composed of these fringe types; I'm saying that Paul has pandered to them to get votes, pushing far-right conspiracy theories and endorsing the kooks who believe them; I'm saying that he's the chosen candidate of the racist right, at least one of whom (a Neo-Nazi and Klan member in Michigan) is one of his field organizers; I'm saying he takes donations from them; and I'm saying that ideologically his ideas speak to them, which we can talk about more if you want to in between the Paul-bots.

Regarding libertarianism, Sullivan's argument (as is often the case) is silly. Libertarianism means you believe in a hands-off government, but in taking personal responsibility for your own decisions. Libertarianism has literally nothing to do with Paul's actions, except in the opposite sense Sullivan suggests. I will explain, using only the most obvious case, the newsletters.

For two decades, people were writing the vilest type of racist, sexist and homophobic drivel under Ron Paul's name. Paul himself might or might not have been one of them. My guess is that he wasn't, but he certainly knew about it.

I mean, I'm not now and will never be a U.S. Congressman. But if someone were writing "the Jeff Shaw Political Report," I would be damned sure I knew what was in it. Especially if the claims that were being made on my behalf were inflammatory, and made over the course of years. I refuse to believe that Paul didn't know what was in those reports, and of course it's worse if he did know.

This means, at the very least, Paul knew that members of his inner circle were writing deranged racist screeds and putting Paul's own name to the ideas. And did nothing. Remember, this is the most charitable possible explanation for Paul's behavior, and that this is only one example of a pattern of behavior.

[Also, even Sullivan notes that an explanation isn't an excuse. You knew that already, though. Besides, is a brand of libertarianism that doesn't give us the intellectual tools to say "hey, Storm Front is bad" really worth considering, even for a moment?]

Even today, where are the condemnations? Where is Ron Paul's statement of zero tolerance for bigotry in his campaign? Why hasn't he drummed out the guy who is the open Klan member running his on-the-ground efforts in Midland County? Why won't he come out and say "there is no place for these people in the Ron Paul campaign?"

The answer to these questions is simple. They are part of his base, and they have been for years, and he doesn't want to alienate them.

Want to be a libertarian? Fine. Take responsibility for what's published under your name. That's not asking too much.

(No, no one's paying me to do this. If anyone wants to pay me to rip Ron Paul, though, ship the cheddar.)

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

What is done is done. Circumstantial evidence is used by the mentally minuscule to bend the infirm of will.

America will fail for the lack of vision and willful ignorance of her citizenry. Armies will not conquer; she will be sold into slavery.

There are many fronts that America is being undermined on, yet the banter seems to be about trivialities.

Woe be unto the fools who had a chance to stem the tide; yet, by lack of understanding, squandered what their forefathers had given.

I see Ron Paul as the last voice of reason before the troubles begin to make themselves known.

Some of you are sooo smart that you're actually stupid!

Knowledge does not equate to wisdom.

* NAU-bad
*NAFTA-bad
*Amnesty-bad
*Policing the worl-bad
*

If Ron Paul is such a racist why does David Duke, the disgrace (I mean one of the many disgraces) of Louisiana politics have THIS to say about today's money bomb? (I am editing out his website because I think he's a jerk & don't want to divert money to such a vile person as Dukey.)

"The fact that Ron Paul would call King his hero and promote a Ron Paul money bomb on Martin Luther King Day is disgraceful, and we call on all past Ron Paul supporters to protest this by donating to *website deleted* on Martin Luther King’s birthday!"

Wait ... wait ... *ahem* ... "The following opinions expressed by Matt Snyders and Jeff Shaw in no way represent the views of City Pages LLC and/or any of our affiliates."
We now return you to the Ron Paul Cagefight. Let's get it on!

Kate:

David Duke is doing that because David Duke is a loathsome individual who'll do anything to bash Martin Luther King, and he doesn't appreciate Paul's invocation of him to raise funds. Notice that Duke calls on "past Ron Paul supporters" -- i.e., Duke's audience of fellow bigots that have historically been a part of Paul's base -- to transfer their support from Paul.

Please consider two things.

First, consider that there's a difference between bias on a personal level and racism on a systemic level. It's entirely possible for Paul to be the very picture of personal tolerance (which I do not believe is true, for several reasons) and still, through his actions, embolden a broader and more dangerous type of hate.

Racism's not just people disliking folks of a different ethnic background, and being a bigot doesn't mean you uniformly despise all people of a different race. It's often more subtle.

Second, this "Ron Paul considers Martin Luther King a hero" line is recent spin that's patently and demonstrably false. Paul not only voted against creating the King holiday, he said that the civil rights movement King led was "bad from the beginning" due to pushing for "forced integration."

The right has a history of doing this. They resist and resist and resist social change, and then when the change happens, they say "sure, Martin Luther King was a great guy, but *now* people are going too far" -- when in fact they're the same type of people that were fighting against him, and in some cases are actually the same people. Everybody's a fan of justice when the struggle for it happened a generation ago.

It's pretty easy to be a fan of King's 40 years later, but Ron Paul wasn't even a fan of his four years ago, when he railed against the very Civil Rights Act that King fought (and ultimately died) for.