Presumably Paul

The good doctor finds himself in a bit of a pickle with Snoop:

Hey y’all already know I thought Ron Paul was a closet racist, duh, but this is good reading, except for Ron Paul fans, LOL! Sorry could not help that!

I know, I know lies… all lies!!

Well, as they say in Texas: maybe they is and maybe they ain't.

At issue is a conveniently-timed piece in the New Republic - and emblazoned today across the right side of the blogosphere - that sheds some light on a hidden past, a series of newsletters published by Paul, or under his name or byline, that reveals attitudes the candidate now denies:

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming..."

The allegations, TNR notes in the fine print, are not new. In fact they were a campaign issue more than a decade ago. But as the NY Times noted last July:

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do.

Well, Paul issued such a distancing today:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts...

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Now there are several interesting points about the whole sordid affair, probably the most interesting (and least answered) is, "If Paul didn't write these*, why in the world would he let them go out as his words?" Paul's claim that he accepts "moral responsibility" is necessary, but it's certainly not a sufficient answer. The campaign's position paints Paul as something of a naif or a hands-off manager the likes of which capitalism has never seen, and while that's probably the best the campaign can hope for politically, it certainly does not reflect well on the candidate. Not at all. Any reasonable person would - I hope - be a little more careful about what his name is attached to. But I think that's actually the case. He is a naif, or at least was 20 years ago. I certainly hope he learned a lesson, and it's quite possible we've not heard the end of it. I should hope not. As Ricky Ricardo was famous for saying, Lucy has some 'splaining to do here.

One thing we can say about Dr. Paul,** assuming the writings are his - and based on the fact that such writings are that old, that they had to be dug out of KU library archive because there is nothing from his public speeches or legislation in that time that we can use - is that 20 years ago he held racist attitudes. And if the fact that someone used to be a racist*** is a reason someone cannot vote for Dr. Paul, well then they ought not vote for him. But they certainly ought to check if their opinion of Dr. Paul's attitudes matches up to what he has done as a Congressman for the last 2 decades and ponder what the apparent disconnect would mean in a Paul presidency.

I happen to share an opinion with Jonah Goldberg about Dr. Paul, that:

Let’s even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the Star Wars cantina, and that his top advisers have hooves instead of feet.

Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee.

And I might add, Rudolph Giuliani, and Hillary, and Obama, and Romney, for this very reason:

Whatever shortcomings Paul and his friends might have, Paul’s dogma generally renders those shortcomings irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles.

It is the fact that Mike Huckabee - and his equally-progressive comrades - would ban smoking nationwide because not smoking is good for you and the government is there to protect you from yourself, Constitution be damned. Paul would let you smoke and buy your own chemotherapy.

I'm not supporting Ron Paul because he's a perfect man - although the fact that he is (or was) a naif gives me serious pause. I'm supporting him because the political principles he has espoused for 20 years are that everyone ought to be free to be what they wish to be.

Even if they wish to be a racist.

* And if the NY Times is to be believed (I know: HA!) he didn't.

** But that is not perhaps the worst we can say about Dr. Paul. "Naif" is not a defense. In fact, it is a worse character flaw than racist when it comes to Presidents. It certainly needs to be addressed.

*** or maybe still is one.