Alright people, lets be serious.
Have you ever heard of this kirchick guy before? Do you honestly think that in 10 terms as congressman this would not have been brought up if it were true?
Do you honestly think that Tim Russert would have badgered Ron Paul about a couple of earmarks if this information krichick has is true. Someone other than a unknown internet reporter would have brought this up.
As Kirchick himself said to Berin Szoka
Jamie Kirchick: “I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical”
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: “Patience, my friend 
”
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic’s history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.
