Ah, yes, Ron Paul. The Republican turned Libertarian turned Republican (?) has a diverse following of enthusiastic college kids, neo-nazis, 9-11 truthers, and pot smokers. His followers ideologies stretch from socialists that would vote for Hitler if he would end the Iraq war, to Hitler himself (or at least his fanboys). I could go on and on about his faults (that anybody familiar to DailyKos would already know by heart), but the one I DON'T see is Racism.
The first story to hit the mainstream involved Stormfront webmaster Don Black, a former Grand Wizard in the Klan, donated $500 to his campaign. Most political campaigns would have quietly given the money back and tried to avoid the media. But bathed in the unexpectedly high amounts of cash from his donate-insane followers, it hit the press. Then, rather than give it back, they kept it. An unorthodox strategy. The campaign claimed that "Since Dr. Paul doesn't bow to lobbyists, he won't bow to Don Black." While those quick to criticize Paul on his other faults jumped on this issue as "proof" that Paul is a racist, I didn't.
I realized that giving money (back) to a known neo-nazi was a bad idea. The "orthodox" means would treat Don Black like a bad lobbyist. The "unorthodox" means employed by Paul treated Don like the average supporter. When you donate to a campaign (Dennis, in my case), you don't get asked a questionarre about your political beliefs. You don't get asked to request a specific change on the candidate's platform. Donating to campaign is NOT like being a lobbyist. For one, $2300 is FAR too less to actually make a difference. I donate to a campaign that I like, that I support their message. Don donated to a campaign that he liked. Maybe he thought, like many poeple do, that Paul is a racist just like him. He's wrong.
"But what about the 'Ron Paul Report'"?
The simplest excuse is that Paul didn't provide enough oversight (same problem occurs if he's President). A ghostwriter he or someone else hired had some personal racist tendencies. He vented them in the Ron Paul Report, and Paul never bothered to read it until published. The actual writing style used IS different from Paul's, and as the President of the Austin NAACP (a moderate title) attested, the writing simply isn't Paul's. The writer is not known, and for privacy reasons, should not be revealed (if Paul even knows).
Finally, a few in the "white nationalist" movement claim Paul IS one of them. Their claims should be taken as seriously as their beliefs, AKA not at all true.
I wish I had more time, but I thought I'd start by writing about this. Feel free to flame me with claims that I'm a paulbot. I'll just ignore them.