The author doesn't actually claim that Ron Paul wrote these things. The more important task is to smear him however possible. Kirchick does say: "Whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name." Well, that's close enough.
This TNR smear has been making the rounds online, along with the one claiming that Barack Obama is a terrorist fifth-columnist. It's an expansion (a corruption really) of a NYT Magazine piece from last year, in which these points were raised (and dismissed) by Christopher Caldwell, a far more reputable writer. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/ma...22Paul-t.html;
Meanwhile, of course the necons are going after anyone who threatens (in even the smallest way) their established "Israel Uber Alles" foreign policy, and Ron Paul's non-interventionist and "America First" approach threatens indeed, even though he is already fairly marginalized in the campaign. (For more about Marty Peretz, TNR, and their obsession with Israel and right-wing neocon issues, see Eric Alterman: My Marty Peretz Problem -- And Ours | The American Prospect
Why does it still threaten? Because it raises the possibility of debate, of re-examining the lens through which we look at the world, and of questioning some of the bedrock premises of current U.S. policy. That's threatening.
Near the end of his piece, Kirchick declares: "Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate." And there you have the problem. "Respectable debate" must be protected from threatening ideas, and given what the neocons believe to be at stake, no weapon is out of bounds.
From "The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement-Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy Of Dr. Ron Paul"
"In the 1996 general election, Paul‚Äôs Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as ‚Äúsemi-criminal or entirely criminal‚ÄĚ and stated that ‚Äúby far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.‚ÄĚ Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul‚Äôs newsletter as a laudably ‚Äúracialist‚ÄĚ publication.
"Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself ‚ÄĒ quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. ‚ÄúEven the fact that you‚Äôre asking this question infers, ‚ÄėOh, you‚Äôre an anti-Semite,‚Äô ‚ÄĚ he told me in June. Actually, it doesn‚Äôt. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq‚Äôs Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and ‚ÄĒ unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration ‚ÄĒ defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel‚Äôs. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.
"What is interesting is Paul‚Äôs idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is ‚Äúof no importance.‚ÄĚ Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. ‚ÄúOh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!‚ÄĚ he said in mock horror. ‚ÄúIs that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They‚Äôre generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don‚Äôt know how many positions they would have that I don‚Äôt agree with. Because they‚Äôre real strict constitutionalists, they don‚Äôt like the war, they‚Äôre hard-money people. . . . ‚ÄĚ