jamespatrick101 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The money is given to the party at large to use, donated to charity, or set aside for the next time the candidate runs for public office (i.e. Ron Paul 2012).If you're so concerned, why don't you write the Senator and ask, instead of making wild accusations.And yes, what a thief. The man has NEVER voted to raise congressional pay, never voted to raise taxes, never taken a government-paid junket and returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

trdc3lica (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I'll go with the latter.... minus the "idiot" part.

MythofDemocracy (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Where's the money Ron?Tens of millions in donations before he chickened out.What happened to that money, or has he forgotten about that too?I'm ashamed that I fell for it. Paul is just another in a long line of shills, shame on him for stealing all those donations.

Rapprah (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

They are two possibilities,1. Ron Paul is a racist and a liar. or2. He's an idiot to lend his own name to a new letter he doesn't even read.

jimmyjoe1975 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

People can also be free to be the same. Are you not swallowing what the media served up? I knew of the letters long before the media started serving up their sound bites. The same treatment that Obama's minister got. Sound bites that many of us agreed with. Chickens home to roost, letter or not.

wtfsconehead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Diversity is a result of freedom as exemplified by totalitarian governments. The first thing they enforce is uniformity. Any free society affords the people the freedom to be diverse. And after a person is in the spotlight, especially as a presidential candidate they do possess notoriety. Otherwise his name would'nt have been used. It was advertised as the name of a former candidate not a no name physician. I'm not discrediting him as a candidate but the public should'nt just swallow anything.

jimmyjoe1975 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

What if we were not diverse? Would we by any less free? Diversity is enabled by liberty, but it is not necessary to be free. As is witnessed by your belief he was in government during the letters' publication, the public demanded nothing but simply swallowed what they were fed.

jimmyjoe1975 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Actually he was a practicing physician when the letters came out. His name was used as a marketing tool after his Libertarian run for the presidency in 1988. The newsletters ran from 1989 to 1994 while he was out of Congress. He lent his name for the purpose of spreading conservative libertarian philosophy. He has taken responsibility, and alas many of you use the letters as a rallying point when it is probably the liberty message that is opposed.

wtfsconehead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Ensure liberty by protecting the freedom of religion, culture, etc...-diversity. He was a politician otherwise why use the name? And carelessness with your name as a public official is carelessness. I can't speak on his personal beliefs or character. But several newsletters of that nature never warranting his attention is odd. As evidenced, any negativity associated with a politician can make or break a career. And the public demands accountability from them.

wtfsconehead (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

He was a politician when they came out- otherwise why use his name? The hate professed in the letters was done in his name. Even I would know what is done or said with my name attached to it. I don't claim he is hateful - I don't personally know the man or his character. Carelessness is carelessness.One of the major ways the public gets to know a politician is through their writings, speeches, and records. Just like candidates have to assume responsibility for any ads in their name,so the words.