The video was effective in portraying the human compassion of Dr. Ron Paul toward this white woman, who was married to a black man. He chose to treat her. While other racists may not have been sympathetic toward her, Dr. Paul was. Somehow though, it strikes me that is a rather low bar to test anyone’s racial sensibilities, especially in the 70s.

The account documents Dr. Paul’s medical ethics and compassion for the poor, not his managerial and administrative competence which have been called into question by the newsletter hoopla.

Wow, the link was the source of some excellent source data for all the candidates’ record on civil rights. I would not subtantially dispute the ratings. Overall that data shows candidates Johnson, Paul, and President Obama (in that order) are easily ahead of the rest on the issue of protection and respecting civil rights.

Thank you for the link referral.

Dr. Paul’s heart is in the right place on pardoning; however, the president’s power to pardon can only be extended to federal drug crimes. The vast majority of convictions for drugs occur at the state level or in violations of state drug statues. Federal drug criminals tend to be big wigs not the ordinary street hustler.

Imagine that for unintended consequences. Many of the federal pushers get pardoned while the low level addict/pushers languish in state, regional, and local prisons and jails.

Regarding the tabulation of the ballots, I agree with you 100%. I have participated in caucuses. Counting the ballots publicly was the essence of a caucus meeting. Perhaps Iowa GOP has very different rules for theirs than we followed in Virginia in the 1980s. We used to caucus and ballot multiple times. When we left the meeting at the end of the night, we could each know our respective county’s results. All of the local party officials would relate those results to the designated state officials. The process was noisy sometimes, but transparent and fair.

I appreciate you remarks.

In taking my responsibility seriously to think critically about the racism issue, over the past two days, I have been able to research to my satisfaction that the media is doing with Paul what the media does to all candidates who reach the top tier–it give them, their supporters, and the truth seeking public plenty of grief and rumor mill grist.

I do not believe at this point that Dr. Paul is either a racist or anti-semitic. However, it would be naive of me to conclude from his voting pattern and debates performance, which I found admirable that he would be up for job of making America better as president.

Frankly, at this point, I respect Paul as an ideas man and as a candidate for president who is helping to move the country along in a positive direction with his candidacy based on strict constitutional and libertarian principles. How I might like him as president is questionable. I am still trying to envision a way forward for him to win and govern as a GOP president. Should he decide to run on a third party ticket for president, he might more easily win a plurality of the American people’s vote. However, taking the third party route carries its own risks. It might doom his son’s future and invite the fury of the GOP and DEM nasty machines even more.

Those slips are collected, taken to a table, and counted in the open.- To bad people are emotional about their candidate, too bad the democratic process is some times messy, arguementative. Too bad it is inconveinent to have to deal with the basic premiss of one person one vote.

The answer is not to avail simplicity where there can be no simple solution, the answer is to avail an open vote. Deal with it GOP. Like it has always been dealt with, infront of everybody, no secret location, no unknown transfers