I'll be the first to admit I haven't read through the newsletters as a whole (i.e., looked at the scanned documents). I did read the excerpts on TNR, and frankly I felt sick to my stomach, although I completely believe what Paul has said about this and stand behind him.
I'm curious though -- is it possible some of those TNR quotes were really taken out of context? I've been following this closely on reason.com, and someone pointed out that the quote "The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin" wasn't even the complete sentence written. The author left off the first part of the sentence, which said something to the effect that "some people will start to conclude that ..." That, of course, changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. And if that's true, this is clearly nothing but a hit piece.
Someone also pointed out that most of the truly objectionable comments all come from two or so newsletters, and were NOT spread out over "20 years" as the author claimed on Tucker.
I'm curious though -- is it possible some of those TNR quotes were really taken out of context? I've been following this closely on reason.com, and someone pointed out that the quote "The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin" wasn't even the complete sentence written. The author left off the first part of the sentence, which said something to the effect that "some people will start to conclude that ..." That, of course, changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. And if that's true, this is clearly nothing but a hit piece.
Someone also pointed out that most of the truly objectionable comments all come from two or so newsletters, and were NOT spread out over "20 years" as the author claimed on Tucker.