this has been debunked.. this story is simply a smear piece

here is proof

Here’s a transcript between David Weigel of reason.com and Ron Paul on 1/08/07 regarding the New Republic Article.

reason: Do you have any response to The New Republic’s article about your newsletters?

Ron Paul: All it is–it’s old stuff. It’s all been rehashed. It’s all political stuff.

reason: Why don’t you release all the old letters?

Paul: I don’t even have copies of them, because it’s ancient history.

reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these…?

Paul: No. I’ve discussed all of that in the past. It’s just old news.

reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?

Paul: No, I never talked to them.

reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?

Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that’s a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they’re willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.

reason: You didn’t write the derogatory things about him in the letter?

Paul: No.

source:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124281.html

the best part of the new republic article is when it says this:
“Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself.”
http://tinyurl.com/3caypg

come on, this is an obvious smear…. don’t buy in to this low level mockery of journalistic integrity!! James Kirchick has none.

The Reason transcript only does the following:
 
1) Ron Paul states that the accusations and findings levelled against him in the NR report are old news and he has had to deal with them previously.  (Note that there is no specific denial except…)

2) Ron Paul states he did not write derogatory things about Martin Luther King.

Not that powerful but I found this passage from the NR report quite compelling:

"Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it."