Ron Paul is a very divisive political figure. The commenters here will say things about him along the lines of that he's an extreme libertarian on economic issues, but like a stopped clock he happens to be right on anti-imperialism, on the war on drugs and the police state.
As noted by another diarist, the racist newsletters published under his name have gotten closer scrutiny as noted here http://www.dailykos.com/...
I'll take it at face value that Ron Paul flirted and associated with racists and that should disqualify him to be President. Should alien space bats influence the Republican primaries and he still somehow gets the nomination, he would most likely go down in flames in the general.
But as discredited as the messenger has become, that shouldn't discredit the message of anti-imperialism and opposing the police state.
I remember Howard Dean. He caused a huge splash in the 2004 Democratic primaries by taking a staunchly anti-war stance when he declared: "I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". He galvanized many people through the internet towards his candidacy. Then this happened:
He then went into damage control, trying to explain that he wasn't crazy or a nut. In politics, when you have to explain, you're losing.
It's unfortunate that a voice that spoke against the American Empire and it's interests was discredited and silenced.
Ron Paul attracts a very vocal and enthusiastic following. Some may be libertarian computer nerds living in their parents' basements with a lot of time on their hands. But while his libertarian stance on economics are untenable, he would probably attract a lot of respect and support for speaking out against imperialism. This segment from the 2007 Republican debate is practically a clarion call for pacifism:
Who else has said "They attack us because we are over there", contrary to the propaganda that so-called Islamists hate us for our freedom?
There is a hunger and desire for a candidate that speaks truth against imperialism. That Ron Paul is inadequate shouldn't speak ill of those who supported him because of his positions on foreign policy, wiretaps, speaking against the Patriot Act and questioning the War on Drugs.
We have a bipartisan consensus that the American Empire should be supported. The Republicans have largely been rather crude and unapologetic about it, the Democrats are better at presenting a kinder and gentler version of it.
It seems that only the "fringe", like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul ever speak against it. The top tier might say platitudes in regards to peace, but they support the status quo. I.E: supporting an continuing the empire as dictated by the establishment.
Let me qualify everything I wrote that I do not support Ron Paul, especially in regards to the racist newsletters. I just find it unfortunate that somebody without his baggage does not speak just as loudly regarding the issues that many care about.