Ron Paul Newsletter

[RLENT]

Well, when it's not your money or your reputation on the line, it's easy to call a non-disclosure agreement "lame". I'm not sure how abiding by one you sign shows a lack of integrity, tho.

Indeed

If anything, it could be easily argued that it is exactly the reverse - that being willing to abide by agreement you have made - despite the personal political cost - would seem perhaps to indicate an abundance of personal integrity.

Some folks, upon giving their word, take the matter quite seriously .... other folks .... well, not so much ....

 

[muttly]

Indeed

If anything, it could be easily argued that it is exactly the reverse - that being willing to abide by agreement you have made - despite the personal political cost - would seem perhaps to indicate an abundance of personal integrity.

Some folks, upon giving their word, take the matter quite seriously .... other folks .... well, not so much ....

It could easily argued also that instead of abiding by the agreement they are hiding behind the agreement in regards to the the real author.

 

[Turtle]

That could only be "easily argued" if the argument has a basis in fact. Otherwise, it's just a baseless charge.

 

[muttly]

Because many folks are completely ignorant of how that particular profession operates as an industry .... and one really has to look no further than this thread to see the evidence that this is true.

It's background info - context - provided to enable some understanding of thing which most are probably not familiar with ....


Well, I hate to say this .... but think if the above is what you get" from the article you are completely misunderstanding it - it's a comprehension thing.

What she is saying is, that in terms of the industry, there are literally armies of people out there ghost writing (within the industry), not that there are always "armies" of ghost writers wherever she works ....

Although, considering that she appears to have worked for Fortune 1000 companies I suppose it wouldn't be entirely surprising if there were ...


Actually, I don't think a "reasonable" person would infer that at all ... I'll spare everyone here a characterization of what type of person would ....


Yup - should consider the assertion of Dr. Paul's that you just referred to, and what it would seem to indicate:

..... six to eight ......

..... not 6 .....

..... not 7 .....

..... not 8 .....

If one "knows" something, that, by necessity, implies certainty ....

Uncertainty would seem to imply an unfamiliarity ..... or distance from what one is uncertain about ......

The last point is laughable . To deduct that since he was quoted as saying that he had six to eight writers that would present evidence that he was so distant from the actual identity of them that he even didn't know how many there were. Now that's a stretch. Nice try though.

 

[muttly]

It could easily argued also that instead of abiding by the agreement they are hiding behind the agreement in regards to the the real author.

Just to be clear the they I speak about is the author/authors and not Ron Paul.

 

[RLENT]

The last point is laughable.

Oh, I wouldn't really say that - I could have been stated my thoughts better though - it would have been better to had said "a lack of familiarity" " rather than "unfamiliarity"

Two somewhat different implications, but potentially yielding the same result.

To deduct that since he was quoted as saying that he had six to eight writers that would present evidence that he was so distant from the actual identity of them that he even didn't know how many there were. Now that's a stretch.

Explain to me the logical reasoning behind your premise (above), and the conclusion that you arrive at (that it's a "stretch") - and I'll consider it.

I never said it was conclusive evidence BTW.

I take it you concede the remainder of the issues I addressed, since you offered no counter argument, or rebuttal ?

 

[Turtle]

Yeah, that's who I figured you meant.

If you had used "in addition to" rather than "instead of", it's at that point the argument can easily be made, since that's one of the benefits of ghostwriting.

 

[davekc]

Well, first, I think the name or names of the authors will and should come out. It all depends on how that's done. Secondly, the ghostwriters may or may not be Paul's friend. Ghostwriters often have never met the person they are writing for.

Paul may very well know, or at least have a good idea who all wrote for his newsletter. He may or may not know who wrote an individual article, though. I can also envision a scenario where the author is a friend of Paul's, Paul wasn't aware of what was written at the time, and when Paul found out, looked at his friend and said, "Gee, thanks loads, idiot."

"If there were only six to eight that were ghostwriters like Paul has stated than a logical conclusion would be that he knew them all."

So the only factor in whether he knew them all would be the number of ghostwriters? I'd love to see the logic flowchart on how you were able to logically reach that conclusion. Because it would have to contain many little boxes with assumptions and conjecture inside them.

It would necessarily mean, among many things, that he had control over the newsletter, and had it on a a day-to-day basis, that he handled the financial ends of the newsletter, that he wasn't just the publisher but the editor, and that he approved all of the ghostwriters who were hired to write for the newsletter, and he would have to know the names of all those in the available pool of ghostwriters. If all of those things are true, and it doesn't appear any of them are, then your conclusion is logical. If they are not, then it's a conclusion based on flawed logic.

I also think that, politics being what they are, there's a better than even chance that if the names do not come out, Paul will be crucified for it, and if the names do come out, he'll be crucified for it.

It all depends on what the media finds out and wants to do about it. It does seem odd that none of his political opponents on the local or national level has ever brought all this up before. Because, if on the level, they could have removed Paul from the national map a long time ago, considering Paul is The Thorn in the side of Congress, so it's surprising the newsletters haven't been used before. It makes one wonder if the newsletters truly are much ado about nothing and if maybe Paul's answers, despite them not being the kind his detractors would like to hear, absolutely honest and on the level.

The politics of character assassination is a nasty, dirty business, and is most often used with little or no actual facts to base it on. The only time it's valid is when the politician's own record warrants it. Knowing that, and knowing that Paul's own record is the direct opposite of racism and the other charges (though, also in direct opposition to the neocon position), it stands to reason that this, like most other character assassinations, is purely politically motivated by other neocons, and not warranted by his own record. This is a conclusion is further supported by where these accusations originated, and from where they keep cropping up.

And there lies the problem for Paul. Way too many ifs could-bes, and may-bees. I agree with you in that he is going to have to cough up some names if he starts to gain any steam nationally. Media will come after him and a long drawn out explanation true or not isn't going to cut it. Failure to provide names will be spun into he either agrees with what was written or he is hiding something. It will just egg them on more. If he polls where he is at now nationally, probably won't be an issue. I suspect that is partially why it hasn't been pursued strongly in the past, but does seem to be coming up more these last few weeks.

 

[RLENT]

And there lies the problem for Paul. Way too many ifs could-bes, and may-bees. I agree with you in that he is going to have to cough up some names if he starts to gain any steam nationally.

Dave,

I get where you are coming from - it's sort of a "conventional wisdom" viewpoint.

But as history has repeatedly taught us, sometimes "conventional wisdom" ain't so wise after all

Media will come after him and a long drawn out explanation true or not isn't going to cut it. Failure to provide names will be spun into he either agrees with what was written or he is hiding something. It will just egg them on more.

The inherent problem for the media is that the longer they run with the smear campaign, the more they engage in distorting and misrepresenting the truth, and the more hysterical and rabid the rhetoric gets, the more apparent the desperation becomes, the more they raise an awareness of, and an interest in, Dr. Paul - and discredit themselves.

Keep in mind that much of the MSM has attempted to deliberately ignore him up to fairly recently - denying him media coverage, and time in the debates - suppressing his message.

Now we have various talking heads and pundits appearing on the Lobotomy Box shrilly warning of the various "dangerousnesses" of Dr. Paul (Yeah, he's dangerous alright - to them and the Republicrat/Democan establishment)

Now look at where public opinion is in terms of "the establishment" (MSM, party, government, etc.)

Someone decides it's a really bright idea to trot out a Dick "I-like-to-suck-on-toes" Morris being a good example of this sorta thing.

Or Judith "I'm-quite-happy-to-lie-about-them-WMDs-in-Iraq" Miller of the NYT. Using already discredited or questionable voices ain't exactly real bright.

You'd at least think they could find someone that had a shred of cred .... oh wait .... I forgot .... that's a very limited pool .....

All this creates a backlash - causing many people to start looking for themselves, to non-traditional sources of info (aka anything other than the MSM)

The difficulty that these folks have is that they are competing against Dr. Paul's philosophy and message - one which could be described, for lack of better terms, as being based on certain eternal truths ....

If he polls where he is at now nationally, probably won't be an issue.

The level of hysteria on the part of the establishment tells us that they understand exactly why it potentially is an issue ..... a very, very big one.

I've already covered the fact of why national polls aren't all that accurate (too far out from the primary date, lack of focus by those polled, etc.) - this was (accurately, IMO) observed and pointed out by Larry Sabato.

It is interesting though, that Paul's support has continued to rise nationally - despite a concerted effort on the part of the smearbund to prevent it. And he's starting to pickup support from some places he (oddly) didn't have much before:

Ron Paul picking up tea party supporters in state as other campaigns falter

Additionally the nature of Dr. Paul's support fundamently differs from the candidates - it tends to be far more committed (to the man, but more importantly to message and philosophy) - and once it has arrived in Camp Paul, it is unlikely to go away. This was covered in article done by Will Wilkinson in the Economist, and the following graph he did is illustrative of the phenomena:

Think snowball rolling down a large hill, but reverse the concept where gravity actually pulls things up.

I suspect that is partially why it hasn't been pursued strongly in the past, but does seem to be coming up more these last few weeks.

The reason why it's coming up more these last few weeks is because the GOP establishment and their henchmen in the MSM see the writing on the wall.

They have descended into a largely psychotic frenzy-mode - one which is easily observable.

 

[muttly]

Oh, I wouldn't really say that - I could have been stated my thoughts better though - it would have been better to had said "a lack of familiarity" " rather than "unfamiliarity"

Two somewhat different implications, but potentially yielding the same result.


Explain to me the logical reasoning behind your premise (above), and the conclusion that you arrive at (that it's a "stretch") - and I'll consider it.

I never said it was conclusive evidence BTW.

I take it you concede the remainder of the issues I addressed, since you offered no counter argument, or rebuttal ?

Replying to the quote above you're underlined words show emphasis which would indicate a need to point out it's importance such as to,knows,certainty. All were highlighted to convince someone that since Paul didn't even know how many newswriters he had that shows his knowledge of the operation must have been limited. A laughable conclusion. It could instead indicate a reluctance to pinpoint an exact number to make easier the ability to identify them. If that's a stretch it's no more than yours.

Regarding the "army" of ghostwriters quote, you could actually read it both ways, but you seem convinced that your interpretation is correct. Do you have direct knowledge of writing a particular newsletter?

 

[davekc]

Rlent,
I think you are over estimating how other candidates are looking at Paul. At least for right now. Romney has already said he doesn't think Paul is a threat nationally so he hasn't went after him. You will know if he feels threatened by when Romney actually starts spending money. He basically took Gingrich with the help of Paul out in a week in IA.
If you see Romney spend money on Paul, then you know he is taking him more seriously.

 

[Pilgrim]

And there lies the problem for Paul. Way too many ifs could-bes, and may-bees. I agree with you in that he is going to have to cough up some names if he starts to gain any steam nationally. Media will come after him and a long drawn out explanation true or not isn't going to cut it. Failure to provide names will be spun into he either agrees with what was written or he is hiding something. It will just egg them on more. If he polls where he is at now nationally, probably won't be an issue. I suspect that is partially why it hasn't been pursued strongly in the past, but does seem to be coming up more these last few weeks.

As much analysis, speculation and dissection of Paul's newsletter problems we've seen in this forum, it won't hold a candle to what will be done by David Axelrod and his crew of campaign assassins in the unlikely event that Ron Paul should be the GOP nominee; by the time they get through with their attack ads on him Ron Paul will look more racist than David Duke and more insane than Howard Hughes. Keep in mind, this type of campaigning doesn't have to be based on truth - it's perception that matters. As previously stated, there's a reason that Paul has never won so much as a single primary in his past presidential runs - he's a fringe candidate with a fringe following.

 

[davekc]

As much analysis, speculation and dissection of Paul's newsletter problems we've seen in this forum, it won't hold a candle to what will be done by David Axelrod and his crew of campaign assassins in the unlikely event that Ron Paul should be the GOP nominee; by the time they get through with their attack ads on him Ron Paul will look more racist than David Duke and more insane than Howard Hughes. Keep in mind, this type of campaigning doesn't have to be based on truth - it's perception that matters. As previously stated, there's a reason that Paul has never won so much as a single primary in his past presidential runs - he's a fringe candidate with a fringe following.

That would be me with regards to "perception is what matters".
It is true that Axelrod would have a field day with this type of stuff. Just too hard for Paul to spin the "I am not a racist" into a 30 second sound bite if he goes down the path of blaming ghostwriters that he can't name yet was profiting from their work over a period of time.
We have already seen how the media accepted his response. They flat out don't believe him. Simple as that, but not surprising.
I think the real damage will likely come from Romney if and when he opens the war chest. Right now, Romney is pretty much getting a pass as well as Paul. Very little negative advertising on both, but for different reasons.

 

[Pilgrim]

Gingrich has already opened up the subject on Paul's newsletters in South Carolina.

Gingrich questions Ron Paul on racist newsletters
By Harriet McLeod
COLUMBIA, South Carolina | Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:46pm EST


(Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich on Friday urged rival Ron Paul to explain his links to newsletters two decades ago that carried the Texas congressman's name and contained racist, anti-homosexual and anti-Israel rants.
"I think that Congressman Paul has to explain his own situation and how he could have had a decade of newsletters that had his name on it that he apparently wasn't aware of," Gingrich said.
"I think that somebody should say to him 'OK, how much money did you make from the newsletters?' These things are really nasty, and he didn't know about it? Wasn't aware of it? But he's sufficiently ready to be president? It strikes me it raises some fundamental questions about him"...

For the entire article:
Gingrich questions Ron Paul on racist newsletters | Reuters

Chances are, Romney and the others won't be far behind.

 

[RLENT]

Gingrich has already opened up the subject on Paul's newsletters in South Carolina.

ROTFLMAO ....

Heheheh ... yeah .... right after he said he wasn't going to go negative ..... ya just can't make it up .....

Another footbullet delivered to Newt ..... by Newt ....

Pretty soon they'll be rollin' him around in a wheelchair .....

Chances are, Romney and the others won't be far behind.

Good luck

 

[Pilgrim]

Replying to the quote above you're underlined words show emphasis which would indicate a need to point out it's importance such as to,knows,certainty. All were highlighted to convince someone that since Paul didn't even know how many newswriters he had that shows his knowledge of the operation must have been limited. A laughable conclusion. It could instead indicate a reluctance to pinpoint an exact number to make easier the ability to identify them. If that's a stretch it's no more than yours.

Regarding the "army" of ghostwriters quote, you could actually read it both ways, but you seem convinced that your interpretation is correct. Do you have direct knowledge of writing a particular newsletter?

He definitely had direct knowledge in 1995 about the Ron Paul Survival Report (bold emphasis mine):

"I also do an investment letter -- it's called the 'Ron Paul Survival Report' -- which is a gold oriented newsletter. But it's also expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government," Paul says, by way of introduction, in this 1995 video filmed by an MBA student at the University of New Mexico... Paul described the Report as an "investment" newsletter. Though Paul has recently denied paying any attention to newsletters published in his own name, he was very willing to plug them in 1995.

In 1995 Video, Ron Paul Takes Credit For The Ron Paul Survival Report

 

[RLENT]

He definitely had direct knowledge in 1995 about the Ron Paul Survival Report

LOL .... he's never said he had no knowledge of the existence of the newsletters ...... ("direct" or otherwise .... ) .... but he has said that he wasn't involved in the day to day operations of it, nor did he have direct knowledge of certain objectionable content ....

Paul described the Report as an "investment" newsletter. Though Paul has recently denied paying any attention to newsletters published in his own name, he was very willing to plug them in 1995.

And ...... ?

Just more logical fallacy ...... masquerading as ...... something ....

Pure desperation ....

 

[Turtle]

Of course, a laundry list of "ifs, could-bes, and may-bees," really isn't evidence of anything. We learned that from of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the FEMA Death Camp aficionados, and the ever-popular Birthers. People will believe what they want, and will make excuses for, or dismiss outright, that which does not support their beliefs. Some will refuse to be manipulated, others will gleefully accept. Some will even lie to attain their goals. Others, a pathetic minority it would seem, will seek out the truth and accept nothing less, and will decide for themselves which issues are truly important.

Personally, I'm wrangling with contrasting and weighing the actual importance of snippets from old newsletters that Paul didn't even pen, versus what Paul brings to the table today for the future. With the possibility that Paul is a closet "stone-cold racist, anti-Semite and homophobe", with "does it even matter?" I'm trying to reconcile the fact that most of Paul's economic positions and his positions on the drug war actually benefit minorities, while some of his other positions, like severely curtailing welfare and taking absolute control over our borders, do not. I'm trying to reconcile why an anti-war, anti-military-aggression, anti-military-industrial-complex candidate would receive such a large portion of his political campaign contributions from employees of such military industrial complex corporations as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

In any event, I seriously doubt that I will allow the likes of Newt, Mittens, CNN and Fox News et al, and the David Axelrods of the world to manipulate my thoughts. Politics, when played as a game to be won or lost, is a game with consequences on a national and generational scale, and regardless of who wins, We the Sheeple always end up being the losers. Once you commit to something, be it for Paul or against Paul, or for or against another candidate or issue, you're all in, and when something negative about the thing you support arises, you'll counter-argue in your head and in public to support your position, in order for the negative aspect to either be marginalized or dismissed outright. It happens with candidates, political issues, and commercial motor carriers.

If I'm gonna lose, I'm gonna lose with my own mind, rather than a mind of someone else's molding.

 

[chefdennis]

I have said that i will vote for Paul in the primary and the general if he gets that far....none of this stuff matters to me one bit just as i don't give a tinkers behind who slept with who or who made how much money off of who...or what happened with a "state mandated insurance program"...none of it matters to me..

That being said, these newsletters as much as some want to believe are a non -issue will be an issue with the "general" public..most of them will not bother to look any further then what they heard last...I can tell you that guys i have talked with at gun clubs and militia groups get togethers won't vote for him no matter what..and they don't care if he is a racist or not...all they know is what they think is his war / foreign policy ideals...and no amount of talking or showing them facts will change what they think...the same will go for those that want a reason not to vote for him..the newsletters provide that and they will run with it, repeat it to their friends and none of them will bother to look any further...it really is that simple...

So while paul has his staunch supporter, no amount of them talking him up will do any good to those that simply reject him on the surface...Sad, but that is how it is..he has been billed by the msm as a "wack job", 4th string bit player , no chance " nut job" for too long...

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't understand many things about this newsletter stuff. Ron Paul claims he was aware of them but did not do the "day to day" stuff. His signature (fake one) was on it. Why? IF my fake, or real, signature was on a document that others were going to read you can bet your booties I would know exactly what was in that document. It worries me that he does not know what was in them. If he did not pay that much attention to things back then, will he now?