chances are it was the latter. out of all the candidates paul is probably the least racist. he seems like the only stand-up guy left in the field, republican or democrat. why are you making such a fuss about this? you should be one of the biggest fanboys, your political opinions are pretty much in line with his.
The US definition of libertarianism (fiscal conservative, social liberal) would certainly fit me, but I felt let down that Paul's past is far from exemplary. I can not easily accept that he published a newsletter for 10 years that appealed to religious extremists and white supremacists and thinks it is OK now to just say the newsletter had nothing to do with any of his views.
I think it a fair conclusion that everything he says today is just calculated to appeal to a new fan base, now that his old fan base has found other candidates. Yet you are suggesting that the candidate with what appears to be the most racist record is the least racist in the field. I don't see how that follows.
EDIT: I just googled "The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters'' at theatlantic.com. It says just what I was trying to say above. Although it might be more forgiving than me.