Texas NAACP President States has known Ron Paul 20 years and that he is no racist.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

"Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment."

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

I've read the newsletters. Either Ron Paul wrote some rotten, stupid racist trash---for years, or else he allowed someone else to do so, in his name. For years.

My impression of Dr. Paul---perhaps a delusion---was of a decent person who is a libertarian ideologue: preferable to a chickenhawk, fascist Republican or to a sell-out, cave-in, chickenshit Democrat.

Dr. Paul's record: anti-Patriot Act, anti-national ID, anti-wiretapping. How many other Republicans (and from Texas!) can match that?
He voted against the Iraq invasion, and has denounced US Imperialism abroad, and "drug-war" repression at home. That's both in practical terms like opposing mandatory minimum sentences and medical cannabis suppression; and also philosophically in denouncing the whole policy of prohibition.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. So I could shrug off being allied with the likes of David Duke. After all, I once debated David Duke and (figuratively) whipped his ass. The "Dukes" don't speak for the vast majority of Dr. Paul's support.

But there must be a limit to the "strange bedfellows" loophole.

And yet, Ron Paul's campaign is a phenomenal outburst of American dissent. It's irritating the political string-pullers, for sure. Hate to pull the plug now!

The question I am debating is whether Dr. Paul is simply a reincarnation of Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith---or perhaps somebody potentially much better than they were. I don't yet know the answer.

To Misanthrope2 and others, let me explain that I am pondering the metaphysics of redemption and atonement.

Meanwhile, the "bedfellow" dilemma:
I may ask for twin beds rather than have to crawl under the same sheets (ill-chosen metaphor!)---but Ron Paul's present politics would LET PEOPLE OUT OF PRISON (overwhelmingly, African-Americans), CURTAIL US IMPERIALISM, and RESTORE CIVIL LIBERTIES.

He's on record now against race hatred and anti-Semitism. The question remains, do you trust him? Each must answer for himself (or herself.)

The good he may yet do, might atone for the damage done in the past. If only the same could be said for me.

"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!"

-Jamie Kirchick, muckraker, charlatan, hypocrite and Giuliani supporter currently spewing for the New Republic

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

We'll see worse hackery before this campaign is done.

I find it how ridiculous the Huffington Post is for posting, continuously, Ron Paul "bashing-like" stories. Every time one is posted, the story is always proven false. Then there are the "sheep" that buy into it and make ignorant and quick judgments about the story before Ron's response or before they really looked into the real facts for themselves. These are probably the same losers who like Rudy (Fascist), Hillary and Mitt Romney.

Huffington Post, it seems, is gay for Hillary and Obama, just like every single suckered American in this country. They vote based on image, and what the media only shows or promotes. The people in this country, never find things out for themselves, instead they stay naive and bend over for media-manipulation. The people in this country also have an affinity for not trying to know history. If they knew history, they would be agreeing with Ron on foreign policy, instead they like the idea of Empires and "who has the biggest dick in the world". War and domination sounds "righteous" and "sexy", while "logic", "passion" and diplomacy sounds "weak" and "nerdy".

For the "simple-minded" who post comments against Ron Paul, they are all the same. They say, "Ron sucks", "Ron is out of touch", "Ron is a mistake", "Ron is a raciest" and so forth. The fundamental problem with all those rants is, they aren"t justifiable or proven. They are just immature, simple minded, little jabs, which have no point behind them.

It's great to see Ron's message getting out.

No Federal Reserve.

No Genocide in Iraq.

No spying illegaly on citizens.

Health Freedom.

Reduce Empire.

Restore the Constitution.

"Smear, Smear, Smear." That's all you've got?

I don't understand what Paul's supporters think people have to gain by "smearing" him. He's not going to be President, no matter how many times you Digg articles about him.

The publishers of many of the newsletters that Jamie Kirchick alludes to in his New Republic hit piece publicly admitted six months ago that Ron Paul had no influence over their content.

"Ron Paul didn"t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them," said one publisher. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Anyone who doesn't understand what this is all REALLY about needs to read this: http://www.nolanchart.com/article1013.html

I get tired of arguing the legitimacy of the newsletter to people who blindly claim that it's been debunked, so I've written out an in-depth FAQ to cover all of the main talking points:

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Here's the main problem for Ron Paul. Let's pretend, for a moment, that he didn't write the newsletter articles in question. Fine. Then at the very least, he should have read up on the newsletter before it went out in his name. They had fax machines back then, they had overnight delivery back then, Ron Paul could have asked for a proof.

If Ron Paul couldn't do that, then he should have at least been a subscriber to his own 8-page newsletter, and he should have issued a retracion after he had a chance to read it.

If Ron Paul couldn't do that, then he should have at least been willing to disavow the newsletter comments when they first became public, during a huge congressional run in 1996.

Ron Paul did none of those things. If he isn't a racist, then he's completely incompetent, and he lacks sound judgement. He is not fit to serve as president. If he isn't racist, then at the very least, he's completely indifferent to racism, even when it's happening right in front of him, under his own name. He has no right to lecture minorities on how to deal with racism as a nation, when he can't even deal with the racism in his own office. It's like Britney Spear's mom attempting to write a book on motherhood.

And that's if you believe his excuses. Again, we haven't been given any real reason to.

This is disgusting. How can Huffpo allow this to stay up!

What a bunch of shit...RON NEVER did any of these things. The propaganda was proven wrong before and this is even a bigger pile of shit than the last pack of lies.

If this isn't a propaganda piece then why is it on page one and the exclusion of Paul by Fox buried? I was hoping the DEMs wouldn't be as bad as the GOP in smearing and name calling and swift boating, no wonder Americans are pissed and disillusioned. What used to be called Yellow journalism is now called fair and balanced; neither side, left nor right could find impartial reporting if it fell on them.

He isn't a racist, I am not a right winger and dislike Bush. I loath the Patriot act, Military Commissions act, I have protested the war before and during, I want the drug war stopped so we can reign in the police and the obviously biased judicial system, I am watching the dollar become worthless, so which Democrat has held these positions and voted that way? ugh I hate propaganda.

So lets see if I have this right, you allowed people to use your name, write highly questionable articles while using your name, and your defense is, well I did not know. Well you know what police say when you protest a ticket because ya didn't know, ingnorance of the of the law is no excuse, in this case, ignorence of these acts by others is no excuse either. For all I know you did know about this, but now that people are questioning it you claim that you did not know. As I said saying this does not help "Well officer I did not see the speed limit sign, honest." You are gonna get the ticket anyway. You will excuse me if I do not believe you.

Those unable to make a cogent argument against Ron Paul's proposals for REAL change for the better, resort to smear.