Huffington Post is, to we on the right side of the blogosphere, a blog best known for rabid Jew hatred and publishing the political ramblings of chronic woman abusers like Jim Lampley and Alec Baldwin. That and the racism of Jane Hamsher.

In other words HuffPo isn’t where you would expect to find an expose of a popular anti-war presidential candidates unseemly ties with various White Nationalist organizations, but when that Candidate is a “Republican” who’s stealing the key anti-Zionist/anti-N.W.O. vote away from the left and the story has already been well documented here in several posts and all around the Internet, you can count on the hacks at HuffPo to jump on the band wagon and not give those of us who have worked this story for months and ounce of credit.

Unlike right leaning blogs however, Thomas B. Edsall give Paul more than the benefit of the doubt in his piece, bending over backward to create more separation between Paul and the White nationalist crowd than actually exists:

Through no fault of his own, Rep. Ron Paul’s anti-globalist, anti-government campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has become a magnet in neo-Nazi networks, pulling in activists and supporters from the fringe white nationalist community where anti-Semitism, anti-black and anti-immigrant views are commonplace.

In some cases, these Internet-based activists acknowledge that even though the Paul campaign does not have a racist or anti-Semitic agenda, it can serve as a vehicle to find sympathizers and to recruit new loyalists drawn to the Republican congressman’s opposition to international trade agreements, federal police authority and to the income tax.

Such web-based organizations as Stormfront (motto: “White Pride, World Wide”), Vanguard News Network (“No Jews. Just Right.”) and the Nationalist Coalition (“working to create the relationships that will lay the foundation for the White community that is necessary to our survival”) have become sources of support for Paul’s bid for the Republican nomination, and in some cases have set up separate Ron Paul discussion groups.

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. “We don’t know who these people are,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s communications director. Their support has “nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for….His message of freedom, peace and prosperity – that’s why people support him.”

Paul has not made racist or anti-Semitic appeals to the controversial organizations and their members. Instead, their support is based on Paul’s libertarian opposition to government generally, including the IRS and the powers granted to the federal government under the Patriot Act – views that are shared by many on the conservative fringe of the spectrum.

In the 2000 campaign, Patrick J. (“Pat”) Buchanan appealed to many similar individuals and organizations. Buchanan had a history of expressing views that were often interpreted as anti-Semitic.

Edsall must consider accepting the money and support of radical groups dedicated to overthrowing the government and killing most of the rest of us off potent discouragement indeed. The last time I wrote a piece on Paul and his interesting followers I shot an email off to his campaign which went unanswered for weeks. I did receive a flurry of hate mail, but otherwise the Paul campaigns response to my question of when, if ever, Paul was going to distance himself from the Neo-Nazis supporting him was to email me weeks later telling me that in the 90’s Paul wrote an essay saying racism was collectivism.

Hardly discouraging to the White Nationalists. If their response to me was true to form (and I’m told it is) than in essence their defense is that Paul himself regards racism in general as collectivist, thus un-libertarian, but that otherwise the beliefs of White Nationalist may or may not be true. His non-response to the White Nationalist infiltration of his campaign leaves the door open, in both the Neo-Nazis and his other supporters minds, to Paul embracing on some level the other parts of Nazi ideology that isn’t “collectivist.”

Meaning of course that if you were to provide “proof” of Blacks being less human than Whites or Jews controlling the world than there’s room in the Paul brand of Libertarianism for you. As long as your ideas aren’t formed by “collectivist” means, you’re golden.

I’d say that by not clearly stating that White Nationalism is incompatible with Libertarianism, Paul is encouraging neo-Nazis to support him. But HuffPo has a more “nuanced” view. Nuanced like their fellow anti-war activists:

[youtube]yafeVz8eP0U[/youtube]

Ah. The key Neo-Nazi/breathless Phone porn operator endorsement. She does have a nuanced view. Not as nuanced as Paul himself, who has some interesting things to say about Abraham Lincoln in this interview starting around 1:48:

[youtube]c08dM8QV6rU[/youtube]

Yeah, he’s not saying anything calculated to appealing to anti-government kooks. Nothing at all.

So why the white wash (excuse the pun) of Paul’s perfidy on a left leaning blog that would love to tank any Republican’s chance at the White House? That’s a question we can all ponder. Though there is no doubt the piece could be used to demonize Paul supporters it gives Paul a pass that no other Republican running would get in the same situation.

And why doesn’t Edsall mention that this is an old story on the ‘net? Is it just the animosity of a die hard liberal unwilling to admit that we on the right have the integrity to question our fellow travelers or the kind of lazy journalism the left is known for? I think the former, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was the latter.