i think it is a pretty thin argument... to have to dig so deep and so far back to get any dirt on paul is pretty poor and anyone with half a brain knows that it's impossible for raging libertarians to hold any sort of racial line other than equality amongst the individual people of the state...
So the fact that these things were published in his
newsletter under his
name does not necessarily mean it was something he
believed? Then why should we accept that what he says today is something he believes?
From what you wrote above it seems the logical conclusion to be drawn is that he is not a libertarian.
Or as someone said, if his own newsletter was publishing racist articles in his name and he did not know it, then he is not competent to be president.