The Young Turks

 Ron Paul made two votes that can be considered and he considered "unconstitutional."

One involved funding NASA. The other one was when he broke against president Reagan by voting in favor a national holiday for MLK in 1983.

I went to the New Republic website to see when these supposed racist memos were published, and every racist memo that James Kirchick dug up fell between 1990-1991...not 1960 or 1970 when it was cool to be a racist for some. Heck for all we know, Bush had just competed for votes in 1988 against Paul and he had someone write some bogus junk in his newsletter before the election to use as ammunition against Paul in the 1992 election (I don't suspect that I'm just thinking of motiviations and who benefits.)

James Kirchick cherry picked the following memos from the Ron Paul journals...and btw from what I've heard but can't confirm, this same guy has gone to Ron Paul events with prostitutes claiming to be a Ron Paul supporter to make him look bad...the goal being to make ihis rallies look something like the Star Wars Cantina to reporters.....anyway...from his article the "Angry White Man." There are only 3-4 racist things that I saw and Cenk sited also, and they all fell into the time period of 1990-1991, and Paul was, again, simply not monitoring the thing closely enough. 3-4 racist things came up in a relatively short time period when Paul wasn't even readin the damn thing. His journals were ongoing over a long period of time...why weren't their a butch of racist stuff in them in the 70's and early 80's? When you're associated with the extreme right, I consider that a reasonable track record. He can try to micromanage every little detail of his various presidential campaigns and work running the Libetarian party and these various three news letters, but he missed a few mistakes..

 So it doesn't make sense that Paul voted unconstitutionally for MLK day and kept a clean journal for decades followed by intentionally putting a butch of crap into your journal a decade later. He stated he didn't want or know that stuff was in there.

 --------------------- ---------------------------

 Here is a link to sections of Ron Paul's newletters from the article

--------------------------- ------------------

And here the specific excerpts are.............

 --------------------- --------------------------- ---

"

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.""

--------------------------- --------------------

A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."

--------------------------- -----------------------

 An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

--------------------------- ------------------------

 That's everything I saw with regard to the racist stuff...

Then there is the issue of the homophobia stuff, which I haven't even had a chance to dig through yet or the years when those were written, but I just assumed that stuff was less important since every Republican and Democrat was homophobic in 1970....just look at the stuff Mike Huckabee has said. I seriously doubt Paul was homophobic anyway considering his Libertarian views on things, but why dig through that stuff when we can just take James Kirchick own opinion on that matter that he wrote about on gays-for-ron blogspot just yesterday that appeared just after he went on the Tucker Carlson show to blast Paul...

"Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!"

 -James Kirchick January 7th, 2008

--------------------------------------------------

Lastly, Cenk did a spot a few weeks ago about Ron Paul being a racist where he cited a since rescinded NYTimes article. there is the issue of the hit piece that the NYTimes put out on Ron Paul, which they apologized for and said should not have been printed. Here is there statement..

------------------------------------------------- 

The NYTimes said the blog "Should not have been published" 

 and

"A post in The Medium blog that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a "white nationalist" Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul's presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly "with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others" at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White." -NYTIMES

 -------------------------------------------------

 So what have the other "non-racist" candidates that www.redstate.com think are acceptable.

 
John McCain - quoted and taped saying in 2000 "I hate gooks and always will"

Mike Huckabee - in 1998 book compared Homosexuality to pedophilia and necrophilia

Huckabee believed HIV patients should be quarantined in  1992 and wanted no federal funds to support AIDS research.

Mitt Romney - said that muslims do not warrant a place in his cabinet. Called all of them radical.

IDK...I'm sure there are some other things out there. My main point is these people ACTUALLY SAID THE STATEMENTS THEMSELVES. Ron Paul is guilty by association only. He didn't write the articles and he accepted "moral responsibility" that they appeared in the journal but he didn't want them there.

If the right wasn't so vehemently ready to tear this guy down at the first chance (see Redstate today...), the left's attacks wouldn't be so overpowering....Cenk should resconsider his Ron Paul tirades...

 Meanwhile Fox News is now calling Ron Paul a "Nazi"...really..click here to see the video (I bet that guy will be "invited back."

Remember their focus groups "dislike Ron Paul when debates.