The New Year is the time when people conscientiously decide to “turn over a new leaf” and do things differently. Some excise old vices; others add new virtues. But what happens when former ideals re-surface in the midst of professed change? Or, even more, when past beliefs appear at inconvenient times of new progress. Well, Texas Republican candidate, Ron Paul, is stuck with a dilemma on the eve of the Iowa Caucuses.

Ron Paul is in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president. Paul spent much of the race pulling up the rear. His rise in the polls has brought with it increased scrutiny over a series of racist newsletters that went out under his name in the 80s and 90s. It’s not unusual that dirt comes out when you’re on your way to the top. If there’s anything there, it should.

The newsletters claimed that “[o]rder was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” that nearly all Black men in Washington DC “are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and that AIDS sufferers “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,” among other controversial claims.

Each of the statements - whether cherry-picked or not - are specifically meant to demean and were targeted toward Blacks. These are the same types of code-word statements used today by the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O’Riellys, Neal Boortzes and Glenn Becks of the conservative punditry. These code words become the lexicon for whites who never have personal encounters or relationships with Black Americans, and for whites who will be voting in November.

Ron Paul’s campaign says he didn’t write an advertising letter mailed under Paul’s name 20 years ago that predicted a “coming race war in our big cities” and referenced a “federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS.” Paul reiterated his claim that he did not know who wrote the newsletters, saying “everybody knows I didn’t write them, and it’s not my sentiment.” Funny how he never disavowed them upon their publication. He suggested that the resurfacing of the issue reflects “politics as usual.” What’s ironic is that these statements are direct reflections of what “smaller government” fiscal conservatives surreptitiously place before the American public as to why the nation is in debt. Paul happens to be one of those conservatives.

Paul claims he didn’t write those newsletters, but of course, his name was on every one of them. If he didn’t write them and the newsletters emitted some positive, world-changing rhetoric, do you think he’d then claim them? He wouldn’t hesitate to take responsibility for any uplifting, uniting publication. For that reason, we should be acutely suspicious of these writings, their origin and their distribution.

He ain’t new to this rodeo. This is Paul’s fourth run for president. He ran the first time as a Libertarian. The Libertarians still embrace him as one of theirs. His policies are good for white America - and are a death knell for Blacks who suffer from America’s systemic injustices in all areas, including the federal departments concerned with education, environment and housing. He wants to eliminate oversight and regulation of the bandits who fleece the working class: banking, housing, retail corporations and workplace safety. He wants to de-fund government-sponsored opportunities for our children to attend college.

His opponent in the Republican race, Michelle Bachmann, says that Paul’s policies make him “dangerous” as a candidate (she better hope he doesn’t win the nomination). But she finds him “dangerous” for an entirely unrelated reason. She’s coming in dead last in the polls and has to use some inflammatory rhetoric to bring him down.

Sure, Paul’s policy positions are consistent. Many know his drug legalization policies make sense. Sure, his anti-interventionist foreign policies are wise and frugal, but when it comes to the real lives of the one-quarter minority population, Paul’s belief system is adverse and harmful to representing our interests.

In the final analysis, we only wish that we could cherry-pick our candidates, taking the good parts and discarding the trash. Unfortunately, every candidate must be taken in whole. If the preponderance of his/her positions work against our best interests, we must discard the entire candidate. If only their best ideas could be incorporated into the better candidate in the race.

Paul’s policy positions made him a wolf in the 80s and 90s; he’s trying to put on the sheep’s clothing today. We’ve seen in this Republican race, most of the candidates have been exposed for what they truly are. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and now, Ron Paul. Don’t be fooled. What I know, is that in politics, it is rare that a wolf is not a wolf.

BlackCommentator.com Columnist, Perry Redd, is the former Executive Director of the workers rights advocacy, Sincere Seven, and author of the on-line commentary, “The Other Side of the Tracks.” He is the host of the internet-based talk radio show, Socially Speaking in Washington, DC. Click here to contact Mr. Redd.