Ron Paul is not a racist! Or something.

Because he is against the war, even some Democrats and liberals support Ron Paul’s candidacy for the White House. That’s because they’re not taking a close look at Paul. Unfortunately, it is necessary to help some do that. Fortunately, Paul makes it easy.

Talking Points Memo provides the video:

At Edge of the West, Ari Kelman says:

There are so many things wrong with this line of argument that I don’t even know where to start. Oh wait, yes I do. Let’s begin with: Lincoln didn’t go to war to “get rid of the original intent of the republic.” You have to know even less about history than Tim Russert – I wouldn’t have thought it possible – to say such a ridiculous thing. Or you have to be a bit too willing, eager even, to marry libertarian political ideology with neo-Confederate historical revisionism. Just to be clear: Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. That’s it. End of story. Full stop.

Also: Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. To clarify his position throughout the 1860 campaign and well into 1861, long after he was elected president without his name having appeared on a single Southern ballot, Lincoln said that slavery shoudn’t be allowed to expand into the West – a position that was part of the Republican Party (Paul’s party) platform.

(more)

And, as Matthew Yglesias explains:

Obviously, yes, there were better ways to end slavery. That’s why Abraham Lincoln didn’t run on a platform that said “let’s have a bloody civil war!” Rather, his idea was to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories and try to nudge the country in the direction of compensated emancipation. The South, though, decided that rather than abide by the results of the election, they would secede from the country and establish a new herrenvolk democracy committed to slavery uber alles. They, not Lincoln, put resolution of the slavery issue through the political process out of reach.

But that wasn’t all. People claim that accusations of Ron Paul’s racism are overblown, and are based on misquotes, or quotes taken out of context. You be the judge. Here’s Paul’s view on the Civil Rights Act, from the Meet The Press transcript:

MR. RUSSERT:  Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.  And you said this: “Contrary to the claims of” “supporters of the Civil Rights Act of” ’64, “the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom.  Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of” ’64 “increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL:  Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it’d be OK or for the military.  Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.  But when it comes, Tim, you’re, you’re, you’re not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don’t like.  So it’s a property rights issue.  And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong.  So this–I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that–and now this thing is totally out of control.  If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government’s going to come down and say you’re not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you would vote against…

REP. PAUL:  So it’s…

MR. RUSSERT:  You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL:  If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations.  It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics.  And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars.  So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.

Uh huh. And he accepts campaign contributions from white supremacists on the principle of accepting campaign donations. From anyone.

As Kelman says:

For anyone considering voting for Ron Paul, please think again. I know that you’re fed up with the war. So am I. I know that you distrust politicians. So do I. I know that you crave change. Me too. But Ron Paul is either a lunatic, a stone-cold racist (seemingly an in-the-hip-pocket-of-the-Slaveocracy racist, which, to be fair, isn’t very different from some other prominent Republicans – see Trent Lott and his recent defenders) or both. And, by the way, what happened to supporting the troops? Calling the Civil War “senseless”; what will that do to morale?