The Real Newt Gingrich

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
I want Obama out of office. Prefer to have the most fiscally conservative candidate with the best chance of getting elected. I don't dislike Ron Paul. I also don't dislike Romney,Bachmann or Santorum as well. I generally know the differences that they have with Paul. Pretty much the foreign policy issues. I think all four have integrity. Don't know exactly what you mean about Bachmann lying.

My take is that she's not so much lying, as mistaken. She's too quick to accept as truth what isn't anywhere near it, and she's done it too many times to overlook.
She accepts what she wants to hear, and parrots it back.
The religion is a big drawback for me personally, but her attitude towards fact vs fiction makes her unacceptable to lead.


I like her fiscally conservative positions and her blunt talk about Obama's disaster of a presidency. Santorum is a solid individual with no baggage,but isn't doing that well in the polls. Romney is the most electable and doesn't have much that Obama can use against him.

Romney is just another in a long line of 'me first' leaders - same as the ones who led us into the mess we're in now. His record as an executive shows what he thinks of working people: not much.
We don't need another wealthy man to promise that benefiting the wealthy will create jobs - it hasn't in the past, and we don't buy it anymore.
Nor do we need another 'cowboy' who thinks we have some divine right to run other countries affairs, and interfere with their choices, to suit our desires - we don't have any such right, and never did.

Like I said I don't dislike Paul. I think Rand is an excellent senator. The best chance for the republicans to win and get Obama out is to have a Romney-Rubio or Romney- Ryan ticket.

The only chance the Repubs have of winning is to support Dr Paul - the others are in the same mold as those who led us into our present sad shape. [And got quite an impressive personal fortune while doing it, too] We, the people, have had enough of that.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
The issues that they have now with Obama are primarily fiscally: The sluggish economy,which he exacerbated by his meteoric spending, the passing of Obamacare,and the joke of a energy policy by thwarting the exploration ofour natural rescources.Other expansions of govt. powers such as the EPA have hurt the economy as well.

You can actually replace Obama with Bush, just modify the statement a little and have the same level of validity with the statement backed up by reasonable facts.

The issues we have with Bush were primarily fiscally: The sluggish economy, which he exacerbated by his meteoric spending, the passing of Department of Homeland Security funding and outrageous funding of two wars,and the joke of a energy policy by thwarting the exploration of our natural resources.

Other expansions of govt. powers such as the EPA, DoE and a cumulation of powers in the federal agencies have hurt the economy as well.


Bush and Obama share the same blame as does the congress of 94' - 06 and that of '06 - present. No different and until people come to realize that we can't sustain what we have gotten ourselves into, we won't have any voluntary changes made. I see in the near term that those who become dependent on government checks, whether they feel they are entitled to it or not, will not have that money no matter how much they threaten because it won't be there.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'm not for Newt and don't like his Fannie and Freddie deal. He has too much material for Obama's campaign henchmen to use rightly or wrong. Just think what they will do with those Ron Paul Newsletters?
For those not familiar with the newsletters, there was an article written in 2008 for Reason magazine that documents the whole ugly business:

Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? - Reason Magazine

Also, a shorter article from the American Thinker written in 2007:

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

For anyone that wants to feel the love for Ron Paul, just take a look at the Stormfront.org website mentioned in the above article.

Don't think for a minute that the Democrats and the MSM aren't aware of this stuff, and if by some chance Paul does start looking like a serious candidate all the sludge about the newsletters, the support from the white supremacists and neo-nazis - all of it will be used to shred Paul and destroy any chance he has for national office.

The problem with Paul and his vague answer to Hannity after the 12/15 debate is almost the same as the evasive answers Eric Holder has given to the Senate about the "Fast and Furious" scandal claiming he didn't know what was going on. If Ron Paul is so oblivious and so incompetent that he didn't know what was being written and by whom in a newsletter bearing his name, he has no business even being considered for a job as demanding as POTUS.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The Newsletters will be a mess for Paul. When he was questioned by Hannity about them he appeared to be evasive.
The MSM such as MSNBC have been silent
about talking about this issue. All they've been doing is asking about the republicans "where is the love?" for Paul. If by chance he were to get the nominee THEN Obama's minions with the help from whitehouse mouth piece MSNBC will speak up and say "ahem,now about those newsletters....
They will have 24/7 coverage documenting every word,sentence and comma.
RLent, you got to agree Paul drop the ball on this? He either didn't see fit to be a hands on editor
with comments that might appear in HIS NEWSLETTER or he did know what was being written and didn't see a problem with it. That's assuming he didn't write them himself ,which I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think he did. Although there are other troubling statements he has made in discussing the inflammatory remarks.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
For those not familiar with the newsletters, there was an article written in 2008 for Reason magazine that documents the whole ugly business
The Reason article has been debunked and utterly discredited, as being a dishonest outright propagandistic hit piece - it is highly biased and presents stuff out of context, which, of course, is the hallmark of disengenious liars. To consider it as something that even approaches responsible journalism is either completely delusional ..... or utterly dishonest.

For you to go immediately to them in terms of making people "familiar" with the content is pretty much a total farce and a joke (albeit a rather sick one) - it reveals that rather than honest scholarship you are simiply engaged in inherently dishonest propaganda.

This places your efforts at the same level as and Hannuty and Michelle Bachmann - two individuals for who, "facts" and "the truth" are very malleable things indeed, and who have on many, many occssions clearly demonstrated their utter disdain for honesty and the truth.

You don't even make a pretense of being objective - can you not see that acting in this manner goes directly to your own personal credibility ?

Congrats - that's a brilliant move there Ace.

For anyone that wants an objective assessment, a little honesty, and the real scoop, try reading the following article, which contains additional links, documenting the whole rather dishonest and sordid affair:

Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul

Clearly you and I differ substantially - since personally I have no use whatsoever for those who engage in Yellow Journalism, lies, and dishonesty.

However, for you apparently, they are merely a convenient means to achieve a political end.

Clearly, some will, quite willingly, do anything for "the cause" ...

I suspect that you will have very little in the way of an actual response to any of the above - since you have a repeated history of being non-responsive when you are called out on your dishonest propaganda with actual facts - you just simply ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist .... ya know - kinda like the "meddling" thing ..... :rolleyes:

That, I'm sure, will speak volumes to many.
 
Last edited:

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
I just think its funny that with the left crying racism about almost everything the republican party does there are some that think if paul were to recive the nod then then the liberals will not make the letters front page news.It really does not matter that one guy from the texas NAACP says paul is not racist.Dont any of you remember how the blacks were treated that said they were not voting for Obama in 08?Do you forget what the black members of the tea party are called by the liberals?

I also think its funny that for some,the fact that someone sits at the head of a company make him responsible for every little thing that company does.And if things happen that the head then claims he did not know about that is enough for you to know he/she is not FIT to be president.Yet those same people are giving PAUL a pass on this same thing.Taking into account of how Paul is calling for Eric Holder to be fired due to claiming he did not know Operation Fast and Furious,the same reasoning says Paul who could not do the job of editor of a news letter is not fit for the job of President.

Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters Revealed | News One

Now here is the kicker.When these letters were first brought to light for the country to see at first paul did not deny writing them but claimed that HIS WORDS were being taken out os context.He also said this." he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns"

Here is a 1996 DALLAS STAR morning news interview that he gave where he says this.

1996 Dallas Morning News Interview With Ron Paul

I would be willing to put money on it that if paul were to win IOWA.These letters become breaking news.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Here is the problem. He wasn't pounded by Hannity about them but was asked about the circumstances surrounding them. I didn't see anything in that interview that Hannity twisted. Just asked about them.
Actually the interviewer on these types of questions wouldn't have made any difference as Hannity offered no personal opinion.
Paul did a poor job of describing them (he really didn't) and said someone else (didn't say who) wrote them (bad things) on his newsletter.
Pretty tough sell to say you knew nothing about it which was his response.
I do agree though, not going to be much of an issue unless in some strange way others start to feel threatened by him. No indication of that yet.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The more one searches online for copies of these Ron Paul newsletters, the worse it seems to get. There are snippets and copies of certain parts, but the same quotes seem to crop up repeatedly, like the following from an article in the Houston Chronicle:
Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles ""Lefty" Morris.
Morris said many of Paul's views are ""out there on the fringe" and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in the November general elections.
Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.
Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional District seat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary to Paul, a former congressman and the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.
Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.
""Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote.
Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered ""as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:
""Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, ""We don't think a child of 13 should be held 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."
For the entire article:
CAMPAIGN '96/U.S. HOUSE/Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent/GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime 05/23/1996 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
There's a reason for all the passion directed toward Ron Paul from the white supremacists, neo-nazis and anti-Semites: he apparently put forth a substantial effort to build up a following in those groups for quite some time before suffering the delusion he has the broad spectrum of support needed to be a serious candidate for national office. These groups feel comfortable with Ron Paul because he talks their language and he's on their political wave length.

Personally, I'd like to see some legitimate copies of these "newsletters" in their entirety so we could appreciate the full context. I'd really like to see the context in which the "95 percent of the black males..." quote would be appropriate.

Another link that claims to display copies of excerpts from Paul's newsletters:
Who Wrote The Ron Paul Newsletters? Ron Paul Wrote Them – Clear Proof | Conservatives Network

Obviously, the reader is on his own determining the credibility of the content. However, the part of this piece that interested me the most was the post script regarding the template of counter-arguments by the Paul fanatics - and we have seen a number of these on this forum over the past several years.
P.S. to the Paul supporters.

Saying NU-UH, doesn’t make the facts above go away.
Shouting, “LIAR!” – doesn’t make the facts above go away.
Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn’t make the facts go away.


Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn’t make the above facts go away.

Saying this is old news, doesn’t make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.

Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn’t make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.

Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.

Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.

Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn’t make the above facts untrue.

Calling the evidence bogus doesn’t make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you’re calling Ron Paul’s denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened?

Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul’s name doesn’t prove a thing, shows you’re clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least.

Paul supporters may ask, “How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?” It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul’s name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone’s name without their consent or permission.

Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn’t make the above evidence go away either.

Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He’s not the messiah. He’s not perfect. He’s not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don’t care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn’t a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie.
Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%?

You can’t negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it’s laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don’t care about proof in the first place.

Stating, “That’s all you have?” – does not negate the facts above. Honestly, that’s the standard Paulbot reply to any evidence against Ron Paul. I could have a video of Ron Paul gang raping infants, and the standard Paulbot reply would be, “That’s all you have?” In Paulbot land facts don’t matter and the only facts they have are the delusions they conjure up from spammed online poll wins and rants off the Alex Jones show."
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I'm curious who Pilgrim is endorsing. Likely, it's ABP (anybody but Paul). Someone has a deep hatred of the man, and is posting anything, and everything, from third-rate writers, to show that hate.

Oh... and Herman Cain dun did it wit all dem wimmin too. Pollatiks is reel!
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I'm curious who Pilgrim is endorsing. Likely, it's ABP (anybody but Paul). Someone has a deep hatred of the man, and is posting anything, and everything, from third-rate writers, to show that hate.

Oh... and Herman Cain dun did it wit all dem wimmin too. Pollatiks is reel!

Maybe ,maybe not. Maybe Pilgrim and others just want to get the full story about these newsletters. Paul's campaign hasn't done a good job of explaining them entirely.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Maybe ,maybe not. Maybe Pilgrim and others just want to get the full story about these newsletters.
Sorry, but in the case of Pilgrim, I ain't buying it - I'll have a post elaborating on why that is shortly.

Paul's campaign hasn't done a good job of explaining them entirely.
Pauls campaign has repeatedly addressed the issue - particularly back in '08 ...

And Paul's campaign is smart enough to know that any explanation they put forward - even if exculpatory - will somehow be used against them.

It's a rule of PR to never to provide one's enemy's with further ammo ....

Like the Hawk said: ReelPolatiks

Better to just get the show on the road .....
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Maybe ,maybe not. Maybe Pilgrim and others just want to get the full story about these newsletters. Paul's campaign hasn't done a good job of explaining them entirely.

I'm actually curious as to how this plays out. As we've seen with Cain, I'm sure Dipstick Axelrod will be unleashed to spin, spin, and spin some more, on these newsletters. But as I've seen with Ron Paul, it doesn't matter what he believes, he's for us being free to do as we please. He's for marriage, but acknowledges government has no place in it. He's pro-life, but says the feds don't (and shouldn't) have the power to dictate abortion law.

I was never one to want drugs legalized; until I realized what do I care? What do I care what you do, as long as it doesn't affect me? What do I care what you think? What do I care what you put into your body? Who you screw? What you contract? How many kids you have? I don't. You have the freedom to be you; and likewise, I should have the freedom to be free FROM you. THAT is liberty! In an honestly intelligent society, how can Obama really compete with that? Unfortunately, we don't have an honest, or overly intelligent society - so Dipstick Axelrod is likely to work his venomous wares upon the public again.

As far as Ron Paul being a racist... who cares? We have a flaming racist in the office now, and I don't see him single-handedly screwing those of the ivory skin. He can't. He needs help to put a race at a disadvantage like LBJ did.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I'm curious who Pilgrim is endorsing.
Wonder if he'll come clean - come out in the open - and actually be transparent ?

Likely, it's ABP (anybody but Paul).
Ya think ... ? :rolleyes:

My guess is that it's one of two main issues, or maybe a combination of both:

1. Non-interventionist foreign policy

2. Israel

(The third possibility would be just worship of the state generally :rolleyes:)

Someone has a deep hatred of the man, and is posting anything, and everything, from third-rate writers, to show that hate.
It is .... fairly obvious ain't it ? :rolleyes:

.... any and all of his posts in relation to Dr. Paul just literally seep, ooze, and drip .... with the same type of hatred, contempt and scorn that, as an example, the little worm Hannuty, despite all his efforts, cannot help but let slip by .....or that Neoconmunist™ nut-job Marxist Levin makes absolutely no pretense of hiding

Hawk, this should really come as no surprise - posting "stuff" that is so chockfull of all manner of inneuendo, half-truths, and logical fallacy .... under the guise of "Hey I'm just reporting what I found" is an operation we all ought to well familiar with by now, as "the chefdennis paradigm" .....

That ought to tell ya something .....

Oh... and Herman Cain dun did it wit all dem wimmin too. Pollatiks is reel!
LOL ...... point taken :D

Here's the thing though: Dr. Paul to his credit, while denying that he wrote the objectionable content (more on that in a moment), has come out and taken responsibility for the matter, and said (paraphrased):

"Yeah, I didn't write it, wasn't aware of it (before publication) - but it was published under my name - therefore I'm morally responsible for it. I don't agree with it, and never have .... and anyone that knows me, actually knows that"

That takes some degree of guts, particularly as a public figure - he has owned it.

Compare that with Herman Cain's pronouncements.

FWIW, it may be the case that many here have already read the author of these articles here on EO, as I posted some of his articles.

The author I'm referring to is Fred Reed, who is particularly given to the politically incorrect.

Whether we'll ever know that for sure, is doubtful at best, given the time that has passed .... unless he or whoever wrote it decides to cop to it.
 
Last edited:

aristotle

Veteran Expediter
I don't understand why folks work themselves into a lather over Ron Paul. He has no chance of winning the GOP nomination; indeed, he is very likely to bolt from the GOP when his political fantasy meets reality.

Ron Paul has enthusiastic support from the college-aged crowd. Young people really like idealistic rhetoric. It's an easy sell to young, naive, unsophisticated voters who have little experience as adults. Libertarianism is an easy sell to this demographic as well.

Being idealistic is all good and well. Most folks over the age of thirty have probably advanced to a more practical and mature understanding of how things work. History cannot be undone and the United States cannot disengage from the rest of the world. Nor can our status as the reigning military superpower be wished away.

The fate and existence of many nations depend on promises made by the United States. That's reality, not idealism. Ron Paul's time would be better spent writing poetry on utopian themes.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I don't understand why folks work themselves into a lather over Ron Paul.
Because you don't want to - you have the ideological blinders on. One can lead a horse to water, but it's up to him to take the drink ...

Beyond that, we actually care about our country ... and unlike those "realistic" folks who actually have let it go substantially to hell in a handasket, we plan on taking it back and saving it .....

He has no chance of winning the GOP nomination; indeed, he is very likely to bolt from the GOP when his political fantasy meets reality.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ....

Just think about this: ... what if he does another dozen or two appearances on major shows like he did on Leno last night ? .... what if it starts to snowball ? ... to the point where the lamestream media can't successfully suppress him getting his message out ? ... what if people continue to love the guy, no matter whatever crap the lamestream media trys to throw his way, because of what he really believes in, stands for, and practices ? .....

That's probably enough to give any little (misguided) Dominionist, Neoconmunistwarmonger a fatal coronary right there ....

Ron Paul has enthusiastic support from the college-aged crowd. Young people really like idealistic rhetoric. It's an easy sell to young, naive, unsophisticated voters who have little experience as adults. Libertarianism is an easy sell to this demographic as well.
If you were actually looking and really making it point to be informed of reality (as opposed to relying on preconceived, fixed ideas) you'd know that's very far from an accurate characteriztion of who is supporting him.

I'm in my early 50's and have two adult children, the oldest of which is 30 ... my wife is 60. I am a lifelong Republican.

I've actually spent a little bit of time working in the snakepit that is our Nation's Capitol ..... in fact, I could show some personal snapshots from inside a certain residence on Pennsylvania Avenue, with a few faces you just might recognize ... certainly one in particular ... :rolleyes:

Naive ? .... Sorry, but I don't think so ...

It is certainly true that Paul is targeting young people, seeking to make them politically active - but that ain't the only ones by far - if you think that, you're either just being lazy .... or willfully ignorant.

You're not bothering to actually observe - and just substituting "think" (yours or someone else's) .... an activity that very often leads to less than ideal outcomes ;)

Being idealistic is all good and well. Most folks over the age of thirty have probably advanced to a more practical and mature understanding of how things work.
Oh Good Lord ..... and as many of us know, many folks over thirty are entirely deluded about "the way things work" ....

Your evidence for that is currently sitting in the Whitehouse.

History cannot be undone and the United States cannot disengage from the rest of the world.
No one is suggesting that we should - it might be a real good idea if' mebbe we paid a little attention to that history ..... and we were to just stop constantly sticking our proverbial schlong into the meat grinder .....

Nor can our status as the reigning military superpower be wished away.
No one is suggesting that it should.

The fate and existence of many nations depends on promises made by the United States. That is reality, not idealism.
I'm glad to see you are so concerned about the fate and existence of "many nations".

Perhaps, sometime, if you could spare a moment or two, and it wouldn't be too very much trouble, maybe you could start worrying about the fate and existence of our nation :mad:

Ron Paul's time would be better spent writing poetry on utopian themes.
And your time would probably be better spent actually educating yourself to what's actually going on ..... instead of coming on here and writing this drivel that is demonstrably not based on reality.
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
I'm curious who Pilgrim is endorsing.
Wonder if he'll come clean - come out in the open - and actually get honest ?
IMNSHO, you have to be careful about that. We have a secret ballot in this country for a reason. No one should be pressured into voting a certain way, or revealing who they may or may not endorse. The fact that someone chooses not to "come clean" or "come our in the open" should have no reflection whatsoever on their honesty, or their integrity.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
IMNSHO, you have to be careful about that. We have a secret ballot in this country for a reason. No one should be pressured into voting a certain way,
I have literally no way to pressure anyone to voting a certain way - no do I have any desire to - it's an individual choice, to be done on one's own determinism.

One can seek to make an argument to convince others of a candidate's worthiness to merit their support - ultimately, it's the individual's decision, as it should be.

or revealing who they may or may not endorse.
Realpolitik .....

The fact that someone chooses not to "come clean" or "come our in the open" should have no reflection whatsoever on their honesty, or their integrity.
Continually belittling or attacking a candidate in an election campaign (particularly in the manner that it is being done, which I will not characterize further) legitimately raises the question as to what the motivation is.

The question can be asked - the individual to whom it is addressed is under no compulsion to answer. They can do as they see fit.

I make no secret of who I support and why - in that way, I'm transparent.
 
Last edited:

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Ron Paul Attacked Over Newsletters
by Jake Morphonios

I’ve said before that there was danger in Ron Paul peaking too early. It is the practice of the mainstream media (MSM) to build up Republican candidates just so they can have fun tearing them down. Having worked on the Paul campaign previously in 2008, I was already aware of what kinds of attacks to expect against him. Because Ron Paul offers little to the MSM by way of dirt or scandal, they have to search beyond the candidate himself to find things to attack him with – such as statements made by some of his supporters.

With only a few weeks to go before the Iowa Caucuses, Ron Paul is surging. It isn’t coincidence that it is this moment that the MSM has chosen to bring up the heretofore unmentioned “Ron Paul Newsletters” scandal. In the past 24 hours, the likes of American Spectator, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, New York Magazine, Slate and other media have begun reporting on the newsletter story. We have none other than the neo-con Sean Hannity to thank for stoking the fire of this non-scandal and encouraging Jeffrey Lord of the American Spectator to look into the issue. Lord writes:

"As Hannity quite correctly pointed out, with the other GOP candidates having received the political equivalent of an anal exam, somehow Ron Paul has escaped notice. No more."

Lord goes on to call alleged statements by Paul "the most vile of racist language", "appalling" and "disturbing".

This isn’t the first time the MSM has attacked Paul over the newsletters. In 2008, it was the New Republic that claimed it would be releasing a ****ing expose on Ron Paul. Sure enough, around 3pm EST on the day of the New Hampshire Primary, the New Republic launched their attack and the Drudge Report posted not one, but two, links to the story in bold red font. The last minute assault did little damage to him in New Hampshire because he wasn’t very popular at the time anyway.

But I read the New Republic article. I read the quotes. As I am very familiar with Ron Paul's articulate style of writing and speaking, I immediately recognized that the shocking quotes could not be his. The quotes were ignorant, angry, used poor grammar and did not reflect Paul's style in any way. In fact, the author of the expose admitted that Ron Paul denied the quotes were his – but the attack against Paul himself continued.

Then, like now, the publishing of these unattributed quotes is nothing more than a political hatchet job - cold, calculated and poised to cause maximum damage to the political aspirations of Ron Paul and his freedom-loving supporters.

What the MSM insinuates by publishing these quotes is that Ron Paul is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jew, and supports the KKK. They suggest that Paul advocates that the “superior” white race should arm itself in preparation for a grand race war with the inferiors among us. This low blow is nefarious and indicative of the lengths to which enemies of Paul's message of strict-constitutionalism will go. The MSM went after Bachmann’s looks. They ridiculed Perry for his “Oops” gaffe ad nauseum. They brought forth false accusers to destroy the reputation of Herman Cain. And now they are trying to paint Ron Paul as a white supremacist just when such accusations could cause him the most strategic damage. This is politics at its dirtiest.

I recall defending Ron Paul during the 2008 election cycle. His strong anti-Iraq war stance earned him the ire of Jamie Kirchick, a strong advocate of the war in Iraq and who worked as the assistant editor of the New Republic. Kirchick had announced on Tucker Carlson’s show that he had proof that Congressman Ron Paul was a homophobic racist. Kirchick’s article was published on the day of the New Hampshire Primaries to maximize its shock value and rocket his own name into headlines.

The premise of the newsletter scandal is a poor one.

From the 1970’s to the 1990’s, various newsletters were published which bore the name “Ron Paul” in their titles. A vast number of the newsletters were printed without even having been read or reviewed by Ron Paul. Much of Ron Paul’s support comes independent of him or his official organization. For example, Dr. Paul was not personally responsible for the 2008 Ron Paul Blimp, the Tea Party ’07, or the various "money bombs" that catapulted him to stardom. Likewise, past supporters have published their own ideas on subjects, independent of Ron Paul’s involvement or approval.

It would be wrong to hold Mitt Romney responsible for the polygamy of Mormons in the 1800’s. It would be wrong to hold Barack Obama personally responsible for all the statements made by his ignorant supporters. Likewise, it would be wrong to hold Ron Paul responsible for the opinions or statements of all the individuals that share some of his political philosophies.

Unfortunately, since the issue of the newsletters had been raised, Ron Paul knew that he had to address the issue again as he had done in previous campaign cycles. In response to Kirchick’s article, Ron Paul said in 2008:

"The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary."

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what when out under my name."​

If Jamie Kirchick knew that this story was old news and that Ron Paul wasn’t responsible for the handful of racist and homophobic remarks written in the newsletters, why did he run the story anyway? The answer to that question may be found by reading Kirchick’s own words. On the “Gays for Ron” website, Berin M. Szoka revealed an excerpt of an email he received from Kirchick about the newsletters. Kirchick wrote to Szoka:

"I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!"

That Jamie Kirchick was a self-aggrandizing pseudo-journalist with a personal agenda to gain attention cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that the pseudo-journalists making issue of these newsletters in 2012 are just as irresponsible and intellectually dishonest as Kirchick was in 2008.

If you weren’t already aware of the Newsletter scandal, you now know enough about the issue to strongly defend the honor of Congressman Ron Paul. And, if you didn't already know how low Sean Hannity stoops, you do now. It takes a real slimeball to call another man a racist behind his back.

Ron Paul Attacked Over Newsletters
 
Top