In the middle of last night’s epic Iowa Caucus Ron Paul‘s Twitter feed sent out a Tweet directed at Jon Hunstman, who had opted to skip Iowa:
The tweet, which immediately blazed through Twitter, was quickly deleted and then reposted.
On CNN this morning a somewhat confused Ron Paul told Soledad O’Brien that he had no idea what tweet she was referencing.
“I didn’t quite understand even what you just read, but, obviously, I didn’t send it. so, I don’t even understand. I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the whole message there about Jon Huntsman. I haven’t talked about Jon Huntsman in a long time. I don’t know what’s going on there.”
So fine. It’s not unusual for Tweet feeds of politicians or otherwise powerful people to be run by an assistant (and Paul told O’Brien he “has some help” with his Twitter). But the (admittedly somewhat minor infraction) does bear a striking similarity to Paul’s controversial newsletters.
Those newsletters, which were often racist in content, went out in the late eighties and early nineties under Paul’s name, and while Paul has since rejected their content he has defended his involvement by claiming to neither written nor seen the newsletters.
All of which continues to raise the question: Who speaks for Ron Paul? And if it’s going out under his name how are we supposed to know when it’s him and when it’s not?
NOW WATCH: Briefing videos
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.