Yeah I've been reading the debate out of passing interest and have seen all the stuff about the donations from the white power groups etc. as well. There's also plenty of evidence that he's anti-gay. But these matters are open for contention, and I think the correct terrain to attack Ron Paul on are the things that he definitively advocates here and now rather than dubious comments made in the 90s: his absurd Hayekian belief in the gold standard and monetary policy, his creationism, his anti-choice stance, and so on. Like all Libertarians Ron Paul is only able to conceive of power as a top-down force flowing oppressively from central government, rather than something that has myriad points of origin (including most significantly, capital).

I think the reason his anti-gay and racist past is being dredged up by his opponents is to highlight to those who are supporting him solely on his anti-imperialist policy that there's more to Ron Paul than just calling for troops out. It's proving effective in dissuading the Democrat chattering classes from switching, but it does highlight the paucity of American political discourse that it is these issues, rather than questioning his Libertarianism per se, that are the main focus IMHO.