Dave Weigel has interviewed Ron Paul briefly for Reason Magazine, where they're tearing their hair out over this. Weigel says "Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned." (More here.)
In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."People seem to think that he was calling blacks "animals."This was actually the Mount Pleasant riots, the largest in DC since the 1968 Martin Luther King riots, and it was immigrant Hispanics rioting against the African-American city government, so that's not what what's going on here, it's just a normal headline like "Inmates Take Over Asylum."
Not all the the quotes are things I agree with, but what the hell, I don't always agree with what's written in VDARE.com. But we're committed to presenting the facts (Kirchick's references to the newsletter's 's criticism of MLK contain no hint of what is actually known about MLK's personal life and plagiarism, which, I promise you, will be unfamiliar to TNR readers ) and we need to keep pushing the limits of what the Mainstream Media is not saying. But there's a paragraph in the hit piece that really defines what it's about:
Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."The New Republic wants to police the "boundaries of respectable debate"—that's what this is about. See how many "conservatives" pile on to help them.