Today, 05:02 PM
And to what effect? None really. They didn't cause Ron a drop in the polls. Ron lost because the main thing he was known for, being against the war in Iraq, was an anathema to most republican voters. Remember in 2008 that 70% of GOP voters believed with Sarah Palin the ridiculous conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was involved in 911. That number had dropped off somewhat by 2012 but by that point idiot Republicans had firmly identified Ron Paul as "liberal" because he was against the war. Some Republicans are so stupid that they haven't figured out yet irony of voting for Trump, who claims (somewhat falsely) to have always been against the Iraq war. Hell, I heard one moronic talk show host who supports Trump still ranting against the Dixie Chicks and saying "They wouldn't be welcome at a Trump rally" when they got in trouble for taking the position that Trump only pretends to take now that it's popular. (The Iraq war was a mistake and George W. Bush is an embarrassment.) Really, I never met a single Republican who said "Gee....I like Ron Paul despite his position on the Iraq war.....but those newsletters make him look racist so I can't vote for him." In fact by 2012 the black democrats that I knew that were bothered by the newsletters got over it.
Again, think through your analysis. It doesn't matter whether or not something gets used. It only matters if it has an effect. Bringing up the newsletters against Paul had no appreciable effect. Bringing up Clinton's womanizing at this point has no measurable effect. If Aquabuddha or the Civil Rights Act was brought up against Rand at this point it would have no measurable effect. Don't you think his democratic opponent in Kentucky right now would be using either issue if it had the possibility of helping him win?