I don't disagree that he might have been pandering for votes, but that alone isn't enough to label him as "a typical politician". His opposition to campaigns funded by corporations and special interests and his platform's consistency is more important to me. Based on his voting record I am not concerned about him having any racist thoughts, and whether or not he used this as pandering for votes isn't a big enough deal for me to choose one of the other typical status quo garbage candidates over him.
More power to ya. You can't ever support a politician, especially one who's been in the game long enough to run for President, without being willing to look past the eggs he's broken in order to make a successful political career omelette. None of these candidates are without black eyes.
For me, though, it's a gamebreaker. It says political gain outweighs morality and he'll stoop to any level necessary if he thinks it might gain him votes. I mean, if he's willing to allow his name to be attached to something he claims to not believe in for the sake of political gain, how can we tell if he's sincere about anything his campaign is saying now? And if these dozens of newsletters (which made him millions of dollars and he actively tried to get supporters to subscribe to) were just an innocent oversight, how can we trust the 77-year-old version to not overlook vastly more important Presidential matters? It's all very un-Presidential to me, but maybe I'm naively idealistic. To each his own.
I also believe that if Mitt Romney had anything like that in his book -- whether he wrote it (as opposed to a ghost writer) or not, whether he believes it or not, whether his political track record reflects it or not -- his campaign would be deader than a doornail. Same goes for any other candidate. With Ron Paul though, it doesn't seem to matter. It gets written off so easily. That's weird to me. Oh well.