However humorous you may find him, those newsletters, published under his name with his consent, are indefensibly racist.

I've seen nothing in Paul's behavior to suggest he is a racist, or an anti-Semite. But Franko is correct. Those newsletters were full of some racist shit. Paul was making money trafficking in conspiracy theories and racist fear mongering; his claims he did not know what was in those newsletters either make him a liar or a complete incompetent.

Not reading one's eponymous newsletters and simply assuming the work of others would be okay is complete managerial incompetence. Keeping tabs on what the people who work for you are doing in your name is important.

Ya Christopher, those evil republicans are so much worse that the angelic democrats and progressives

Yes, Ron, that's what I was saying, except more clearly and effectively expressed. Thanks!

"He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all..."

The problem with such an attitude is how it is reaonsably *accurately* read by even secular Jews, even those who oppose settlements anywhere east of the 67 line.

RP (and others who say the same): "I wish the Israeli state did not exist at all... (and all the rest)"

Translation to an average moderate Jew: "Why can't the Jews just live where we graciously let them -- until of course the *next* time things go badly for us and we can blame everything on them and kick them out or worse (Not that will happen, no one can prove has it ever happened and if it does it will be different this time, honestly I promise this time). And everyone knows that there would be no antisemitism if it weren't for those damned uppidy Jews."

Hezbollah, Fatah and Hamas doesn't get Israelis to back Likud hardliners, it's thoughtless attitudes such as RPs, who deliver a clear message, that it's all the Jews fault, again.

There are sober critics of Israel who can question Zionism beyond the 67 borders, loudly oppose Likud and settlement activity, and ought not nor should not be labeled as antisemites. But RP is not in that spectrum: channeling Nasser (calling for the Israeli eastern boarder to be the Mediterranean), even in a soft gentle voice, is channeling antisemitism, not to mention demonstrating a divergence from a realpolitik that the even adults in the PA accept that disqualifies him from the presidency.

I can believe that he was irresponsibly and unacceptably clueless about the newsletter content. But the above assessment, at best, only confirms that he is out of touch with more than Blacks and Latinos. He's totally clueless when it comes to Jews and absolutely totally beyond clueless about those who pathologically hate them.

Christopher's childish rants about Sarah Palin makes his opinions of Ron Paul worthless.

On Ron Paul, he, and his followers, are pro-Ron Paul to the detriment of Party and Country. My opinion, but based on personal knowledge from when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in the 80's.

That's some great logic, Dave B, and and really grounded in solid facts.

I don't think much of Palin, but I'm not prone to ranting about her.

I kind of like Ron Paul, and agree with many of his views. I do not think the newsletter business reflects well on him.

Well, the Zionist movement before WWII was against establishing a State of Israel, even denouncing the founding of Tel Aviv under the British rule. But Tel Aviv was a success, and Israel later came to be, so I feel being against the continued existence of Israel is anti-Jewish. Add to that Ron Paul's stance that we should not have fought Germany in WWII and did so obly to "save the Jews" - oh come now, FDR was not a great supporter of Jews, and Germany declared war on the US (supporting Japan) to which we responded.

Jews, blacks, homosexuals - all are fine to him as donors, but not doe him to use their bathrooms or shake their hands.

R. Paul has some good ideas, but then so did Benedict Arnold and Jeffersn Davis. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln had ideas I dislike, mind you: it is the preponderance of ideas (and actions) that makes the differences.

I find it fascinating when this or that candidate is cited for being racist, or a "whack-job". They never seem to be Democrats, possibly because the whackos can agree on their representative. The "D" beside the name on the ballot apparently means "disregard voting record, previous public statements or real actions while formerly in office; disregard also promises to perform Constitutionally-prohibited duties when elected which are NOT being performed NOW."

Two words, Rad: Cynthia McKinney.

First, allowing something to be published in your name and not knowing what the contents are is either negligent or incompetent. We already have a President who is both, we do not need another one.

Ron Paul self-disqualifies with his own response.

Second, even if those newsletters had never been published Ron Paul's foreign policy is infantile at best, malignant at worst.

Ron Paul again self-disqualifies with his own responses.

There is no reason to suspect that a man as fundamentally unserious as Ron Paul has thought through the consequences of his beliefs, therefore he is not fit to be the President of the United States.

We've already seen what having fundamentally unserious men and women in charge has done to the US and the world since the early 1990's.

Ron Paul is the only candidate on the Republican slate that is actually more useless than Mitt Romney.

And that's quite an achievement.

Allegedly, RP made a nice profit off that newsletter. And it published material that RP should/would be interested in.

I find it incomprehensible how RP can claim he never read his own 8 page or so newsletters every month, given those circumstances. I agree with Christopher: this is incompetence.

Yeah, Bill. That's 1. Now, look up Corinne Brown.