I'm sure there are many in the Cheddarsphere who have been waiting to see what I had to say about the article on TNR about Ron Paul and his "racist past".  First of all, let's be clear what the purpose was.  It was a hatchet job that was purposefully timed to have maximum impact in New Hampshire (where Ron Paul's support is the greatest), with the least time for any  reaction to it.  TNR never even asked the campaign to comment before the article.  Ron Paul's official reaction is here:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.  It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

These allegations are rather old (more than a decade), and have been talked about many times.  You can read more about them here.  For my part, I do not believe Ron Paul is a racist, but I do believe that he was very mistaken to allow those newsletters to be ghostwritten without better vetting.  I also find his responses to this controversy lacking in many ways.  I think he should call out the actual authors.  Also saying that "these are old allegations" really isn't going to cut it for a national campaign.  Most people don't know him, and they don't know what the allegations were then, and how he responded then.  He's running for President now, and so he needs to react now.  This interview, for instance, does a much better job than the press release to fight the allegations:

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.

What I do think is encouraging is that he is, and always has, taken full responsibility for what was written under his name, and acknowledges the moral stain that it placed on him, and takes it seriously.  He has apologized, and vigorously condemned what was said.  What more do you really expect him to do?  It would seem that many won't be satisfied until he puts up his hands, says "I quit", and puts all his support to Fred Thompson, and apologizes for foolishly even bothering to run for office.  So to a certain extent, I can understand the limited reaction, since there is really no point in trying to diffuse a bomb that has already exploded.

Many people also want to link these newsletters with the types of people who support Ron Paul (some of whom are racist), and want to find him guilty by association.  But here is the rub.  Freedom attracts scum.  The freedom that Ron Paul actively campaigns for, which I want for myself to make my life better, are the same freedoms that ugly people with ugly views would use to continue to push those hatred forward.  The scum of this nation wants more freedom just good and honest people do, and so it ought to be no surprise that they'd support a candidate who pushes for that freedom.  Nobody wants racists, bigots, and hate mongers to have the same freedoms that we do... but there is no way to give it to one group, and not another.  That's what makes being a libertarian so hard.  Most people just can't cut it as libertarians.

Does this change my support for Ron Paul?  No it does not.  But I do recognize that the allegations presented, and his limited responses, may make it harder to garner more support from other people, which would have made his campaign more viable.  So in that respect, the TNR hatchet job was successful, and that is too bad.

You can see a good summary of various reactions here, and there is another defense of Ron Paul from Stephen Green.