Critics of "Dr. Paul" (insert eye-roll here) might have indulged in some quote-mining to find the remarks on which they base their accusations of racism, but cherry-picking this one quote only repeats the error. One quote doesn't prove anything.

What motivation does someone who at that point was out of Washington and out of major party politics who apparently had no intentions of returning to the political spotlight aside from a sure-to-fail-but-get-out-the-word campaign as the LP Presidential Candidate have to lie about his view negative view of racism? In my view, at least, the quotation from the book he did write in 1987 (as well as other exhibits I brought forth) is much better evidence of his true views on race than anything that the opposing side can dig up.

He's a politician. Politicians routinely say things they don't believe, to satisfy some constituency or other. Ron Quixote's House seat might be pretty secure - or it might not - but he's playing to a national audience now and probably planned to do so all along. He's not stupid. He would never court the white-supremacist vote without making statements just like those you cite to provide cover. That he has made such statements does not prove bad faith, but it doesn't prove good faith either.

Do you honestly believe that RP, a politician 98% of the country had never heard of before the May 2007 South Carolina Fox debate, has been plotting his high-profile Presidential run for effectively twenty years, the time period from his LP run to today in which he has argued against racism and stated admiration of Civil Rights Era leaders while known by maybe only 2% of the population in a politcally-advantageous calculation? Are you honestly saying to me that he planned all along to be a high profile candidate and for the day when he would raise $19.5 million in Q4? I can tell you, from first hand experience in working with the campaign closely: they were not at all prepared for what the campaign has become.

The thrust of your post seems to be that the evidence of Paul's racism is not absolutely airtight therefore he must be OK.

Umm... no. What I am saying is that 1) the evidence that he is not a racist, upon examination, is quite strong, and that 2) the evidence that he is a racist, upon thought and examination, is not.

In reality, the so-called MSM hasn't been making that charge either. it's only on party partisan blogs(which are overtly hostile to libertarians to begin with) that those charges get bandied around by some. Then again, those collectivist clogs haven't had an original thought enter their brains for some time now...

the whole thing is actually quite stupid and dim. I participated in some DKos threads where this ridiculous matter was being peddled mercilessly at all costs. what a waste of time. No amount of simple evidence or positive corollary could steer those dim-witted dolts from the idea that Paul is racist. They WANTED to believe it. Pathetic.

I can't participate on a site with a collectivist mentality that you can only talk about democrats and work only to get democrats elected and if you diverge from such stated guidelines you get troll-rated. i couldn't do that for any party, including the LP. If Kos uses a worn out blogosphere term like "bat shit insane" then his parrot minions just repeat the same shit over and over. That being said, there is some reservoir of support for Ron Paul among progressives over at Kos, it just doesn't come out in the open that often because of the troll-rating system, but it does manifest itself in the polls over there. Occasionally, especially in front page stories after the money bombs, the comments (numbering in the high hundreds) were almost 50% supportive of Paul. if you go to a progressive blog like Opednews, which is more dedicated to progressivism rather than the democratic party per se, Paul enjoys a surprising amount of support. A lot of progressives have a problem with the major candidates of the Dem party being awash in corporate money and see Paul's individual donor base as being a more people-powered campaign. They don't like his libertarian economic views but view a democratic congress as blocking that aspect of his libertarianism but are quite willing to have a President Paul act unilaterally in foreign policy. commander-in-chief and such issues as the drug war.

Think like a Christian evangelist -- you don't hang out with the prostitutes and tax-collectors because they are wise, witty, or otherwise a pleasure to be around -- you hang out with them because they need your guidance.

Okay, I've depicted that attitude as being a little more arrogant than it actually is, but the point is that if you want to spread the message of liberty, you have to go where that message is rarely heard. To my knowledge, Daily Kos is the only large, open community devoted to political discussion. Everything I write gets a few comments, suggesting that there are at least tens of readers.

Sure, you're limited to topics that "promote the Democratic agenda", but that's a pretty broad guideline. Furthermore, I think it's totally appropriate for websites to have posting guidelines--any publication needs to have some coherence in its content (with that being said, a good portion of DKos posts are not at all political--they are more "human interest" or "community building" discussions -- but those could also serve the Democratic agenda by creating greater partisan loyalty).

While it is off-limits to advocate for a particular candidate, that doesn't bother me much because I don't put much stock in candidates, even Ron Paul. I still manage to correct misrepresentations of Paul, without consequence.

In general, if you know how to phrase your ideas, you can avoid troll-rating and tap into an audience that normally wouldn't hear libertarian ideas. You may not be able to be as direct as you'd like to be, but I don't think that people make radical changes to their opinions by way of direct arguments anyway...it's much more important to spread particular attitudes, or open people's eyes to particular concerns/interpretations. Over time, as those pile up, thinking people will replace their worn-out opinions with stronger opinions.

FWIW, if we're looking for a "new, improved, and inclusive DKos", I think that Swords Crossed has the best shot at it. Check it out. I often cross-post at Swords Crossed and other sites.

I've been participating in Internet discussions for over 10 years now, and at first the morons and trolls really got to me. After about two years, I learned to ignore them. This doesn't quite work when the morons have the power of troll-rating, but I generally haven't found it too hard to avoid getting TR'd. If you want to say something that is likely to get TR'd, then say it somewhere other than DKos.

There will be blind partisans/fanatics in any conversation. I've heard that John Stuart Mill believed that most of humanity was hopelessly lost, and he comforted himself with the knowledge that there were still a few people who could learn, and if he could find those people and help them to develop, then he had accomplished a great thing.