Pirate's Cove

The (very liberal) New Republic entitles their article on Ron Paul and his supposed bigotry and racist attitudes, as well as his conspiracy theory paranoia “Angry White Man”

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation praised “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.” (snip)

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. (WT – emphasis mine)

Read the whole thing, rather interesting and well researched article, and make your own cognitive determination.

Confederate Yankee asks if it is curtains for Paul. You have to see the accompanying photo.

James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has a particularly good breakdown of the article.

Warner Todd Huston at Stop The ACLU says that Paul may not believe every racist sentiment in the newsletters, but, they were published with his name on it, and believes Paul should remove himself from the race toot sweet.

Hot Air has some interesting video.

Pajamas Media has lots of quotes (plus lots of Ronulans in the comments)

See much more at Memeorandum.