A signature is defined as any mark by which a person is commonly known.

Were the letters signed with Ron Paul’s signature (bearing his mark)?
Yes
Were the signatures forged?
No

Therefore, he is responsible for their content.

I know they’re a cult and all, but anyone who can dress themselves should be able to see Paul is a fraud.

Proof there is indeed a sucker born every minute.

He’s the most authentic conservative who passes the Buckley test. I don’t care how he started the campaign, it’s time to get over whatever hurt feelings we might have and get behind the guy.

On another note, is no one as outraged by the Virginia “loyalty oath” thing as I am? It’s like Romney’s crowd isn’t satisfied with just shutting the process down, they want to make sure we all get the message that we have to get in line, too.

Paul’s voter are not going to crossover to vote for Huntsman, Gingrich, etc… His voters are his voters libertarians. Confused me the other day when Gingrich attacked Paul, when he should be focusing 100% on Romney.

The target is Romney sheesh I don’t see why in the world people don’t see it.

I mean think about it who is taking voters from Huntsman? Ron Paul? Nope Romney. I swear it seems they all secretly want Romney to win or something.

I agree that the explanations of these newsletters are unsatisfactory the more that the questions are pressed.

I do think, however, there are a couple points worth thinking about before the conservative movement starts going over the edge on these newsletters: a) Paul has said that while he disowns them he acknowledges that he has a certain amount of moral responsibility for them — to me it goes a long way that he has said he has moral responsibility — but I don’t expect him to do a mea culpa every speech or interview he gives; you get it out there strongly once and move on and let the chips fall where they may; b) there are a number of unsavory flirtations with racial matters that conservatives have had that are not very deeply buried — take a look at Conservative Digest articles from the 1980s and you will see “mainstream” conservatives singing the praises of South Africa and dismissing apartheid, or look at the not-very-subtle dismising of the premises of civil rights. Look at Human Events from the 1970s and 1980s and you might be aghast at articles supporting South Africa. Poke around in the conservative movement organizations of the 1980s and 1990s and you will see it awash with Moonie money. It’s all there with many conservative heroes flirting with things that we find appalling today.

There is a new generation of conservatives that (rightly) does not understand the flirtations and are shocked when they learn of them. The torch is passing from one generation to another and Paul is of an age and era that this is not terribly surprising to find that there would be a lapse of judgment.

The odd and sad thing to me about the newsletters is that they seem to be completely contrary to a long public record he has of not seeing “groups” but seeing individuals. The newsletters are not in sync with him.

In the end, this is but a blip in the conservative movement. The pressing questions for me (outside of electoral politics) is the debate raging over what are core conservative principles and where is it legitimate for conservatives to disagree with each other. The good that will come out of the Paul campaign is getting people to discuss what are the limits of policy divergence within the conservative family and right now those questions are about foreign policy. But there are others. I, for example, strongly oppose the death penalty; I have no idea what Paul thinks of the death penalty but I know that probably 95% of conservatives will disagree with me on that. Does that make me not a conservative? Should I be called “worse than Obama” because Obama supports the dealth penalty and I do not.

Paul is lighting an interesting conversation on the right-leaning blogs with his current campaign — the newsletters are a distraction and I think there are many older conservative pundits staying far away from asking questions about these because there is a lot of ink in their past that they may find embarassing.

is that Paul has been blasted from all sides (i.e. newsletters, foreign policy, etc.) from the MSM and bloggers since becoming an Iowa contender. Still, Paul’s support both nationally and in Iowa has not decreased if you look at recent polls since the attacks began. What gives?

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/

That was an interesting link from the “bleeding heart” libertarian. What the heck is that? A libertarian who believes in welfare, food stamps and free health-care for all? These guys divide themselves into so many sub-groupings that it becomes ridiculous. It reminds one of teenagers arguing whether Madonna or Lady Gaga is truly the greatest.

After attempting to digest this insider opinion, the panty twisting dilemma becomes clear. After many paragraphs of explaining a grand plan by Murray Rothbard (and Lew Rockwell) to court southern social conservatives, and pointing the finger for the controversial newsletter content at Rothbard, the writer comes to the following conclusion:

“What we need right now is Rothbard’s vision of a free society as sketched in For a New Liberty, but we need it defended better.”

So they both love and hate Rothbard, depending on the situation. It’s no wonder that no one is coming out as the writer. The writer is dead, and no one wants to speak ill of the person they still revere as having the go-forward solution to creating Utopia.

Of what was done using this “paleo strategy” according to this author.

It’s not just the newsletters but also pictures of Ron Paul posing with this leader of a white supremist group, and his close friendship and alliances with Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard – and everything else they authored.