A Jan.4 Jerusalem Post article, titled Rand Paul: My father is misunderstood on Israel starts out with:

"Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's son tells 'Post' his father’s positions Iranian nuclear threat in line with Israel's."

Also, Weiss says:

"On the other hand, if [Paul] sticks around, we might have a presidential debate in which candidates openly dispute aid to Israel, an attack on Iran, and what Paul has called apartheid conditions on the West Bank, with honesty no other candidate is capable of."

However, Paul told Ha'aretz on Dec. 28,

Well, it was a bit surprising and disappointing. I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world. And the views that I hold have many adherents in Israel today. Two of the tenets of a true Zionist are “self-determination” and “self-reliance.” I do not believe we should be Israel’s master but, rather, her friend. We should not be dictating her policies and announcing her negotiating positions before talks with her neighbors have even begun.

And also:

I do not know, as I am the one candidate who would respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate to her about how she should deal with her neighbors. I supported Israel’s right to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 1980s, and I opposed President Obama’s attempt to dictate Israel’s borders this year...... Israel should be free to take whatever steps she deems necessary to protect her national security and sovereignty.

I don't know if Weiss has seen that, but letting Israel "self-determine" and opposing an attempt to prevent Israel from building in occupied Palestinian territory sounds like giving Israel the green light to ignore international law & convention & a little thing called "the Green Line." Bantustanizing the OPT is the way in which Israel's apartheid policies towards Palestinians is most pronounced. Israel is doing exactly what Paul recommends, feeling free to do whatever it wishes, namely determining its own borders w/the apartheid wall.

I think it's time to ask what the true motivations of pundits such as Weiss are.

Even if Paul is trounced later on in the primaries, he will by then have done what many of us thought impossible: make Republican candidates such as Romney & Gingrich look reasonable and generous.
Paul's candidacy can do no good for most Americans unless he wins the nomination and then is soundly defeated, dragging his Old Right spiel down with him as Goldwater did in I,964.

Unless Weiss and company are attempting to achieve such an end by the devious means of appearing to support a candidate whom they actually despise, then their motivations can only be cast in a sinister light.

As I've written to you before, both publicly & privately, I believe most supporters of the Left don't support socialism.
They support the Left in order to support various single issues or lifestyle choices.
If that's so, then it's not unreasonable to wonder whether some of those who are supporting Paul are themselves moving towards the popular Right or hope to become part of future popular Right political campaigns.

You seem to be willing to misrepresent and twist Ron Paul's words however which ever way you want. First of you say
In fact, precisely backwards. Mixing up an anti-war position with racism and right-wing populism will merely delegitimize it in the eyes of many Americans who have basically anti-war instincts but concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and saber-rattling. Ron Paul has repeatedly said it would be better if Iran did not get a nuclear weapon but this is no reason to go to war considering many of its neighbors have nuclear weapons including Israel.

Ron Paul's "opposition" (note correct spelling) to the NDAA seems to be more bluster than real. Addicting Info points out that he didn't even bother to show up to vote against it! You can see who voted and how at the House's official role call.

Ron Paul supporters are pointing to a new interview with CNN's John King Jan. 6 in which he supposedly "disavows" his ultra-creepy supporters like the neo-Nazi Stormfront, American Free Press (marketers of March of the Titans: A History of the White Race) and the Militia of Montana. Again, he gives a lukewarm and perfunctory disavowal of their views (while engaging in red-baiting about how maybe "communists" and "socialists" support Obama), but while explicitly not disavowing their support. ("I don't investigate my donors.") This is really sinister propaganda. Ironically, King leads by asking if Paul is "comfortable with these donors," and Paul responds that he's "not comfortable with you making a big deal about it!" And this is what his supporters call a "disavowal"!? Egad!

Meanwhile, fellow GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman is calling on Paul to repudiate a hateful online attack ad posted by "NHLiberty4Paul." The ad features video footage of Huntsman in Beijing when he was ambassador to China, as well as of Huntsman speaking Chinese with his adopted daughter from China, and playing with his other adopted daughter from India. It features Chinese music, calls Huntsman a "Manchurian Candidate," and closes with a mock-up of him in a Mao uniform. "American values? Or Chinese?" the ad asks, ending with "Vote Ron Paul." We aren't aware that Paul has responded, but some of his more paranoid supporters (e.g. The End Run) are claiming the ad is a "'False Flag'-style Dirty Trick Against Paul."

In this video clip online at DC Streets Blog, Ron Paul responds to the question of a supporter who feels conflicted, adhering to Paul's free-market principles but appreciating his city's public transit system. Paul responds by boasting that he has never set foot on the DC Metro and hopes he never will. He makes the valid point that if not for government subsidy of highways, there "would have been a greater incentive for the market to develop transits [sic?], trains going back and forth." But in the very next line he blames "regulations and union wages" for destroying the private rail industry! Now that we already have the highways, in Paul's universe we can't use public funds for alternatives—so we're stuck with those highways, apparently. Maybe this explains why he wants to turn all public lands and waters over to oil companies.

The New Republic continues to mine toxic specimens from the inexhaustible font of hate which was the Ron Paul newsletter for some 20 years. Still rooting for this guy?

The newsletters warned repeatedly of "race war." The June 1990 Political Report carried an item entitled, "Race War?" which claimed that said war was on the horizon because of "the victimization mentality created by the civil rights movement, where every black failure is a white crime. If there is indeed this sort of trouble ahead, it is just another reason why every honest American should be armed." The August 1990 Political Report claimed that "we've got a potential race war." The December 1990 Investment Letter reported that "Abortion is rampant, race war is heating up, AIDS is spreading, and inflation is wiping out the middle class."

The September 1992 edition of the Political Report wrote of a supposed spate of bank robberies this way: "Today, gangs of young blacks bust into a bank lobby firing rounds at the ceiling." It also said that "We don’t think a child of 13 should be held as responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult, and should be treated as such."

A January 1993 Survival Report item headlined "Poor Marge Schott!" defended the former Cincinnati Reds owner, who was "being crucified" after she referred to her own players as "million dollar niggers," said that "sneaky goddamn Jews are all alike" and "only fruits wear earrings," and claimed that Hitler was an initially positive force for Germany.

The March 1994 Survival Report warned of a "South African Holocaust." It said, "Quite frankly, I cannot see how South Africa is going to escape a blood bath." In June 1994—two months after South Africa's first democratic election—an item headlined, "There Goes South Africa," claimed that "Mandela is trying to appear as a moderate, and indeed he may be as the Red ANC goes." The newsletter advocated a separate state for whites in South Africa, writing, "If everyone accepts the notion that a homeland can be created for the Palestinians, I wonder why no consideration is given by world opinion leaders to a similar situation for the whites in South Africa, as they have requested."

A 1992 issue of the Political Report featured an article headlined, "What Blacks Think," which concluded that “they have some odd political opinions.”

There was also support for white nationalist eugenics advocate Jared Taylor of the American Renaissance hate group.

All hyperlinked to the offending text in the original.