Quoth "dragonlord_kfb@" == > This is not even taking into consideration that [Paul] has already > said he did not write those articles in the first place.
Well, yes, he's said that. On the other hand, as of 1996, he said that he DID write them. And that's part of the dilemma Paul is up against. One of Paul's strongest claims, when reaching beyond the libertarian and constitutionalist movements -- movements which are at present not large enough to fuel a presidential campaign to victory -- is his CONSISTENCY. Paul sells himself as "a different kind of politician." He sells himself as consistent and truthful. Saying "I wrote that content and I defend it" (paraphrase) in 1996, and then saying "I didn't write that content and I repudiate it" (also paraphrase) in 2001 and 2008 means that he's been inconsistent, and that he's lied. It robs him of one of his biggest sticks. There was never any easy way out of this for Paul, once those articles were published. There was never any way out of it that would leave him smelling like a rose. IMO, he would have done the LEAST damage to himself by taking responsibility (real responsibility, not the Clintonesque kind of "responsibility" he's taking now) for that content, pointing out that it was fairly standard conservative Republican rhetoric for its time, and then pleading that his views have changed and highlighting his policy positions that are inherently anti-racist (he's done a little of that last bit). That would have dulled the edge of his "consistency" blade, but it would have had the ring of truth and he might have been able to move on instead of getting bogged down in this stuff. Of course, libertarians (and mea maxima culpa on this) tend to have unrealistic expectations of the politicians we support. They ARE politicians after all, and if they are SUCCESSFUL politicians it's a good bet that they've paid their obeisances to constituency sentiment, popular trends, etc. That's not to say that it's wrong to draw lines and refuse to support politicians who cross them, of course ... but it's unrealistic to expect that a successful politician will not, and will not ever have, crossed some of the lines that ideology might move a libertarian to draw. Ron Paul is a SUCCESSFUL politician, and his success is not attributable to a majority of the constituents in his US House district being committed ideological Rothbardians. He's often told those constituents -- and others -- what they wanted to hear, and what those constituents and others wanted to hear circa 1990 doesn't necessarily land sweetly on the national -- or the libertarian -- ear in 2008. Regards, Tom Knapp
