How do you plan to deal with the slander against Ron Paul for his 2012 run ?

[ProBlue33]

With Ron Paul announcing, the slanderous attacks have begun once again.

Here is a sampling posted at the left leaning Huffington Post. What bugs me about this is that with over 3300 comments and the community pundit has there comment first for people to read and it's all negative.

However there are many positive comments from the posts after that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/25/ron-paul-presidential-exploratory-committee_n_853566.html

[Anti Federalist]

How do you plan to deal with the slander against Ron Paul for his 2012 run ?

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8RbL4PwTDsQ/hqdefault.jpg

[malkusm]

Using the Media Spin forum here at RPF: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?305-Media-Spin

[Aratus]

whoopie G. spent 10 to 15 minutes on the VIEW today BLISTERING thah donald on more than his hair!!!
if there is any consolation to this, the obama people are not simply only focused on RON PAUL right now...

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

We need to be smart about who we debate and how we debate. Some people are just lost causes.

But we need to make sure to stick to our guns i.e. freedom, liberty, and peace.

[LatinsforPaul]

Un-attacking Ron Paul (http://libertymaven.com/2010/04/14/un-attacking-ron-paul/9416/)


The “guilt by association” attack:

This is probably the most commonly-used attack on Ron Paul. Paul was criticized for “accepting” a $500 donation during his campaign from a white supremacist. Of course, the Paul campaign didn’t find out about the donor until it came to light after the donation was made. He refused to return the donation. Instead he argued that it would be better to spend the money wisely in the name of freedom for all rather than returning $500 to a known white supremacist. Some see this as a cop-out. It could also be argued that it was Paul upholding freedom of speech found in the First Amendment. Yes, unfortunately for some, the First Amendment does protect all speech, not just agreeable speech.

People choose to support any given candidate for all kinds of odd reasons. It’s quite common for people to vote for the most likable candidate regardless of the candidate’s political views. I can’t fathom this reasoning (or lack thereof). There are probably some really “scum of the earth” type of people who voted for and supported Barack Obama and John McCain. The reality is that candidates cannot choose their supporters; therefore, they should not be condemned through them.


The “blame America” attack:

This attack on Ron Paul is quite common among neo-conservatives. Their misguided logic goes like this: Ron Paul claims that our government’s foreign policy of the last 50 (or so) years has bred hatred of America in the Middle East. This means Ron Paul blames “America” for atrocities like the 9/11 attacks.

To make this argument one must equate the U.S. government with the American people. When one uses the word “America” it encompasses the government and the citizens. Ron Paul blames U.S foreign policy, not the citizens. United States foreign policy does not equal “America”; therefore, Ron Paul does not blame “America” for anything.

In fact, it could easily be said that Ron Paul is celebrating “America”. He is demonstrating through his words and actions America’s founding principles: distrust and criticism of an over-reaching government.

Arguing that Ron Paul “blames America” is the equivalent of arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a traitor for authoring the Declaration of Independence.

The “isolationist” attack:

This one is so common and yet so misunderstood that it makes my eyes bleed every time I read it or hear it. Luckily it is easy to understand why it isn’t true.

To be an isolationist one must hold two beliefs with respect to foreign policy and trade. First, one must adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy. This is the foreign policy of our Founders and Ron Paul certainly is “guilty” on this one. Second, one must be a protectionist on trade. Protectionism is the antithesis of “free trade”. Ron Paul is a free trader, not a protectionist; therefore, Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

He is, however, a staunch non-interventionist, like our Founding Fathers.

The “racist” attack:

This attack refers to some questionable writing within Ron Paul’s newsletter released in the early 90′s (for the most part). It’s impossible to know what is in someone’s heart, but Paul tends to wear his heart on his sleeve. To call someone a racist who lists Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as heroes seems to say more about the accuser than the accused. He has denied writing the words in those newsletters. Add that to the fact that Paul continuously condemns racism and no other racist remarks attributed to Paul have come to light during his nearly 40 year political career; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is racist.

The “anti-semite” attack:

The “anti-semite” attack appears to stem largely from Paul’s desire to end foreign aid to Israel. The truth is that Paul wants to end all foreign aid, not just to Israel, not just to the many Arab countries that also get U.S. aid, but to all countries. Additionally, Paul’s entire economic belief system is based upon the work of Jewish economists and thinkers; therefore, it is highly unlikely that Ron Paul is an anti-semite.

The “earmark” attack:

Paul has been criticized for putting in earmarks for his constituents in his home district in Texas. What most people don’t realize is that the practice of earmarking is a method to allocate tax money that has already been collected. Refraining from putting in earmarks does not decrease spending at all. In fact, by not putting in earmarks, the President gets the money and can then spend it how he sees fit rather than as Congress sees fit. This is blatantly unconstitutional.

The practice of putting in earmarks actually makes government spending more transparent rather than less. Earmarks account for less than 1% of the budget. Being principled on earmarks is bluster without wind.

While Ron Paul puts them in so his constituents have the opportunity to get some of their tax money back, he votes against them; therefore, Ron Paul should be commended rather than criticized for his position on earmarks.

The “can’t win” attack:

Many are critical of Paul because they feel he is “damaged goods” and doesn’t have a chance at winning should he be the Republican Party’s nominee. Many of these same people donated and cheered another “can’t win” candidate to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year.

It is unlikely that Ron Paul would win, but that doesn’t mean he can’t win. If enough people soul-search toward being free from government rather than being creatures of government, Ron Paul could be the next President of the United States.

I doubt that support could ever come from the ever-dwindling group of neo-conservative Republicans, but that support could certainly come from those on the Left who are now realizing that Obama is potentially worse than Bush on foreign policy.

The “libertarian” attack:

This attack seems to come from both the Left and the Right. The Right attempts to argue that since Paul calls himself a libertarian it means he is a libertine. They argue that he is pro-choice. He’s pro-life. They argue that he would legalize all drugs. He would return that authority to the states, where it belongs, according to the Constitution.

The Left argues that Paul’s free-market approach would leave too many without the basic necessities of life. In fact, if the government were to get out of the welfare business and stop taxing income, Americans would respond with private charity to cover many of the poor that have become dependent on government for their survival. America is the most charitable country in the world even with the tax burden. Imagine what it could be like without that burden.

Yes Ron Paul is a libertarian. So were the Founders. It is a badge of honor, not shame.

The “truther” attack:

Yes, some people actually still believe Ron Paul is a 9/11 “truther”. He is not and stated so during an appearance on Glenn Beck’s TV show during his campaign of 2008. He called some of the truther’s claims “preposterous”. No more words are needed; just watch this clip.

The “gold standard” attack:

Many people say Ron Paul wants to return to a “gold standard”. This is a misunderstanding that Paul himself does not usually get a chance to clarify during short interviews. When it comes to monetary policy Paul supports legalizing the Constitution where it states that only gold and silver can be legal tender. He advocates repealing the legal tender laws. He supports competing currencies, not necessarily a gold standard in the historical sense.

Paul believes that legalizing currencies other than the fiat dollar would utilize market forces to convert the monetary system toward a currency that would be backed by something tangible. That could be gold, silver, or whatever the market determines is best.

It’s easy to just flippantly say, “oh he’s for the gold standard”, and then follow it up with an equally flippant, “that’s just crazy and we already proved that couldn’t work.” The truth is in the details. Competing currencies could possibly bring about a de-facto gold standard, but this wouldn’t be your great-grandfather’s gold standard.

The point is to bring freedom to the monetary system, not institute some kind of regulated currency ready-made for manipulation by special interests. We already have that now.

The “end the Fed” attack:

This attack, like many others, preys on fear. The attack suggests that Paul would like to abolish the Federal Reserve the minute he takes office. Paul has stated numerous times that legalizing competing currencies (see the “gold standard” attack above) would gradually and naturally siphon power away from the Federal Reserve.

This power reduction would occur because people would likely demand the use of the hard currency instead of the fiat currency being peddled by the Fed. Another indication of this gradual approach is Paul’s bill to require a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

Sure, he’d like to just abolish the Federal Reserve, but he realizes that would be too drastic a measure for markets to remain stable if it were done too quickly.

The “mother’s basement” attack:

This attack seems to come from envy or jealousy rather than sound reasoning. It goes something like this:

“All those Ron Paul supporters do is spam Internet polls while living in their mother’s basements!”

In fact, a Google search on “ron paul mother’s basement” yields about 62,000 results.

I’m living proof that this attack is untrue. I don’t live in my mother’s basement. My parents don’t even have a basement. In fact there is not a single Ron Paul supporter I know who lives in a basement. We own our own homes, have jobs, families, and many of us have children. We just want the government to go away and/or leave us alone.

It could more easily be argued that those who do not support the freedom found in Ron Paul’s message are living in their government’s basement.

[trey4sports]

The best way to counter attacks is to knock doors in Iowa, that's how we win.

[acptulsa]

Ask not who will defend Paul. Ask who will defend the MSM's credibility when we expose them.

[specsaregood]

I plan on finding the home addresses of the various members of the media and going through lots of bags of flaming dog poo.

[speciallyblend]

I plan on finding the home addresses of the various members of the media and going through lots of bags of flaming dog poo.

and follows specsaregood with ron pauls baseball bat, the rest is classified! ;)

[pcosmar]

Snow Balls,
need more snowballs
:rolleyes:

Really, I am just going to ignore most of it and focus on Liberty.

[acptulsa]

Snow Balls,
need more snowballs
:rolleyes:

Oh, their perfidity and mendacity is snowballing on them, all right.

[Captain Shays]

I don't care about liberals slandering Ron Paul or opposing him. In fact, the more they oppose him the better. We are judged not only by our friends but who are enemies are. If the liberals hate Ron Paul that shows him as more conservative on the issues they oppose him on. If they agree it shows his appeal to independents and democrats.


Republicans are the one's we need to convince with good arguments and it''s their slander we need to get in the face of with full blast. We need to first win the Republican nomination and focus on ONLY that right now.

It's actually easy to gain their respect on Ron Paul's limited govt positions and his integrity and stead-fastness. They can't EVER claim that Ron Paul flip flops. Ever.

Now we need to convince them on foreign policy. Just today I called into a show to blast an ignorant talk show host by the name of Dom Gioradano over at WPHT in Philly. He mentioned that RP announced his candidacy and then went on to say that Ron PAul blamed us for 911 blah blah F'n BLAH. So I called in and told everyone that when Dom says that to go on youtube and watch Michael Scheuer who created and ran the bin Laden unit for 12 years defend Ron Paul against that idiocy. I also got in that this meddling foreign policy of Democrats goes against the strong advice of our founding fathers, isn't allowed in the Constitution and most Americans want no part of,.

He quickly went on to another topic and didn't even challenge me.

Its the TRUTH and we NEED to hammer it home EVERY DAY. That the interventionist foreign policy is the type DEMOCRATS invented not Republicans. Not our founding fathers. This method isn't only the most honest and in your face way to deal with Republicans but if they oppose it, then they are defending the foreign policy of Democrats.. It puts them in a lose lose situation and propels Ron Paul to prominence.

[belian78]

Won't have to worry about the slander this time around, the GJ brigade will hurt much more than meaningless slander from liberals.