Reason: Ron Paul defended his newsletters for years

To paraphrase LBJ on Cronkite, if he’s lost Reason he’s lost middle America, or at least the sliver of it that’s willing to look the other way at certain eccentricities provided they come packaged with a tough line on fiat money. I’m guessing it was this Virginia Postrel post wondering why they couldn’t smell a turd rotting under their own noses for the past decade that nudged them towards taking a deeper whiff. In any case, excellent work by Matt Welch. Note well this passage, also cited by Captain Ed, from a 1996 article in the Dallas Morning News:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. […]

Proof that he wrote them? No, just strong evidence, and even stronger evidence that they bothered him so little at the time that he was willing to take credit for their authorship even if he wasn’t the author.

Follow the comments at the link for the predictable “why does this matter?” pushback from the Paulnuts. Ace thinks this is the most laughable defense of him yet to emerge but I prefer this one from our comments section yesterday. Although when you have spin this embarrassing coming from “respected” pundits, there’s really no need to go cherrypicking from the dregs of the rEVOLution for material. Sullivan’s defense amounts to praising Paul for being so principled a libertarian that he won’t even condemn Truthers (or Nazis) for their views — although he will, of course, happily condemn neocons. “Thank God for Ron Paul,” “I want this man for president” — he might as well own up and confess to having written the newsletters. They wouldn’t love him any less if he did.