You mean like this?
“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.” 

–Ron Paul, Business Wire.

He has said a variation of this statement over and over, but you know, when it’s all you got on someone, it’s all you’ve got.

You mean like this:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
–Rep. Ron Paul 

While I’m not a Paul fan by any stretch of the imagination, I think it speaks well of his character that of the thousands of female OB/GYN patients he’s treated over decades, not one has yet come out to “Herman Cain” him.

Geez. You guys are becoming like libs wanting a Soviet like denouncement. Are you aware of the psychological conditioning involve here? For him to be legitimate, he has to use YOUR words in his apology. 

republicanmother,

On the contrary, there’s nothing I want from Paul at all. 

I’m just paying attention to what he actually says, instead of pretending he said what you wish he’d said.

Bullshit, how is it Ron Paul gets credit for wanting to balance the budget and reduce government spending, bureaucracy, regulations, taxes, and go back to small government and federalism?

Bachmann, Perry, and to a lesser extent Santorum are all for the same things. Even Newt in some regards. Hell, you don’t have to limit yourself to presidential candidates, look at most of the Republicans in the House and many in the Senate, then look at the many Republicans in state and regional offices.

Paul might be more extreme than most of them, but what it all boils down to, the rest of them aren’t booger-eating conspiracy theorists looking for a Rothschilde to pop out from under their beds at night.

And what of the Left?

Margaret Sanger come to mind?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently remarked upon the social value of abortion by mentioning how it culls the number of undesirables.  Her phrase was so nakedly racist that it stunned the audience, and the MSM passed over her comments.

Y’know, there’s an old German woman 2 blocks from me  who repeats ad nauseum ‘Hitler was a gentleman’ because of his ‘MutterKinde’ program, which saved her life by giving her mother and her free trip to the warm mediterranean when she was a Tubercular child or something.  

Women loved Hitler. Perhaps they, as a vote block, did more to bring him to power and keep him there than anyone. Screaming baby-tantrum speeches eh? They had to keep Eva Braun secret, just like they had to keep Paul McCartney’s marriage secret.  

Ron is a neat inversion: baby-boy looks (gentle hands!), but quiet tough-talk (or what women understand as ‘tough’ ie weaselly dissembling of vicious bigotry, sorry ladies but admit it! That ladies prefer Brando-esque bad-boys to fair-handed sherriffs). Paul is the baby-faced bad-boy.

We’re doomed!

Well that is why I have thrown my support to Santorum (and Bachmann is supported by many in my family — for me she shot herself in the foot with some of her comments).

Perry?  I don’t really trust that he is doing anything other than pandering — his record in Texas has not been supportive of the idea that he is truly that adverse to statism.

As for the other Republicans — they aren’t running (and here is where I get to be remarkably free in my choice — my “guy”, the one I might have emotional attachments to that could cloud my thinking, isn’t running…a very liberating experience once you get over the disappointment).

I would consider it more an ugly form of tribalism, but I could see where it could be called collectivism.  However, I believe it is part and parcel of human nature and thus can never be truly extinguished by anything but the equality of the grave.  Thus both RP and the very thing he argues against here are disengenuous — the best we can hope to do is keep our tribalistic urges in check so they don’t become too nasty.

And it would have been better for your canidate if he’d come out with that more and less of the insanity in those newsletters (and the Bradley Manning thing was a serious screw up, much like some of his foreign policy).

It is a pity that the more agreeable parts of his platform have to be couched with the ones that just can’t be abided by — at least for me.

I’m done arguing with the Ron Paul folks.

Bruce, one of the biggest problems in trying to keep such evil people away from reins of power is that others like to say “oh, this group or that group is responsible for him/her”.  Actually what they are trying to do is say “not me, I’m innocent — heck, I”m a victim!”

Nope, everybody is guilty when that sort of stuff goes down — even members of the loyal opposition (because they didn’t really oppose all that hard now after all, did they?).

Sorry buddy, women were guilty as sin…but so were men.  Nobody gets to ride for free.

This post makes me sad. As does my recent discovery at AmSpec that you apparently are backing or are at least sympathetic to Santorum. It would appear that the former “paleoish” or “paleo sympathetic” RSM has gone completely mainstream native.
 
Back when you were defending Rush, some of my paleoish friends at that time decided that you were no longer a crypto paleo and had gone full mainstream movement con, but I defended you saying you were just defending Rush against moderates which you could still do and keep your paleo credentials intact, although some qualification of that support would be in order. Sadly, it appears my friends were right and I was wrong.
 
I would think that given the attempted purge of you by Charles Johnson and his band of PC thought policers that you would be very reluctant to join in on the attempted purge of Ron Paul by the same politically correct forces of Cultural Marxism, but apparently not.
 
I agree that the language sited above is over the top and an obvious attempt to sell newsletter subscriptions to the type of people who subscribed to newsletters in the late 80′s and early 90′s, but NO ONE who has any fondness for Santorum has any business accusing anyone else of fearmongering. Ever since Santorum lost his Senate seat, he has been attempting to carve out a niche for himself as most absurd fearmongerer. Santorum even warned us that we need to be afraid of the rising Venezuelan menace. (I wish I was kidding, but I’m not.)
 
I don’t excuse over-the-top language, and I have said that Paul should have apologized for the language without conceding to the accusation that the newsletters contained things that were inherently racist. I haven’t seen anything that was overtly, inherently racist. But Paul’s ghost-writer’s over-the-top language was in the service of selling newsletters and making a buck. Santorum’s over the top fearmongering is in the service of sending US soldiers off to kill and be killed in more needless wars.
 
And your use of thought stopping slurs like “moonbat” “kook” “tin-foil hatters” and casual references to mental illness, etc. is simply inexcusable. You fought Charles Johnson yet you have become Charles Johnson. Is it worth it Stacy? Is all that mainstream acceptability really worth it when you look in the mirror every morning and know you sold your soul and have become that which you used to buck?
 
I have obviously not been keeping up with your career path. I assumed you were still paleoish, and I just assumed since you opposed the invasion of Iraq and I thought had non-interventionist leanings that you were supporting Ron Paul, although perhaps secretly. What a difference a few years and a brush with the PC police can make I guess. Well at least we still have Jim Antle.