Hannity about to go on attack

[RonPaulCult]

Just teased it on his radio show after interviewing newt. Looks like he'll be doing it in the next 10 minutes.

Here's the live feed if you want to hear the garbage.

http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/citadel/?sid=5864

EDIT: He keeps teasing this but he hasn't done the segment yet. My best estimate would be around 4:30 ET now (looks like he'll interview Mitt first).

[RonPaulCult]

I guess he cancelled the interview and decided to smear him instead. Classy.

[coastie]

On his show now...

[Sola_Fide]

So it begins...

[The One]

I'm embarrassed to admit that 4 years ago I overreacted and freaked out when the newsletters came out. It turned out to be no big deal, and I ended up looking like a jackass. Everybody chill...and save yourselves the embarrassment.

[NY-Dano]

I guess he cancelled the interview and decided to smear him instead. Classy.
No, he said Ron would be on later. I think they bumped him for Newt.

[RonPaulCult]

I doubt Hannity is going to mention that Ron Paul absolutely 100% DID NOT WRITE THEM. He'll just read the quotes and call him a racist.

[braane]

I guess he cancelled the interview and decided to smear him instead. Classy.
Hannity must really be fearful of the good Dr.

[RonPaulCult]

No, he said Ron would be on later. I think they bumped him for Newt.

noooooooooooo he said "why is Ron Paul getting a pass on his newsletters. That's coming up next"

Also, the interview has been cancelled.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Well.

[dbill27]

Ron should refuse to talk to hannity anymore, publicly call him an embarassment to conservatism and to journalism and then call him a statist.

[RonPaulCult]

Hannity must really be fearful of the good Dr.

Ever since the PPP poll came out - they are ALL scared

[fearthereaperx]

I seriously doubt Ron is going to be on after an attack. Most likely he canceled the interview this morning..

[Publicani]

He started his program with love fest with Newt. Newt said "and that's why I called you...." "No, no, no, we called you." Two main points: 1. Newt is a real conservative, 2. Republican candidates shouldn't criticize each other but only Barack Obama.
Then Hannity said: "We'll talk about Ron Paul newsletterts: why there was so little scrutiny of it."
It looks like it's a strategy. Will hear about the newsletters tomorrow during the debate as well.

[sailingaway]

So, gee, cancel having Ron on so he could defend himself!!!

It was clear last night he actually thinks Ron wrote this. Levin isn't believable as Hannity because Levin so clearly froths at the mouth over Ron at all times. Levin seems to have sold Hannity a bill of goods, though.

I am not going to tune in to a hit job. Let me know what we need to counter.

I am pissed at Hannity, though, not only did he not TRY to ask for the other side as any journalist should, he specifically CANCELED a preplanned appearance which would have given Ron the opportunity to respond.

Whatever. Here we go.

[Johncjackson]

I said the newsletters could be an issue, and RP will have to handle it better this time. if everyone thinks it's no big deal, then what's the worry? I just think it needs to be better handled, is all.

[RonPaulCult]

I seriously doubt Ron is going to be on after an attack. Most likely he canceled the interview this morning..

It was Hannity who cancelled.

[braane]

noooooooooooo he said "why is Ron Paul getting a pass on his newsletters. That's coming up next"
Only if he would say the truth, which is that they absolutely weren't written by him, then it wouldn't be a problem.

[dbill27]

Can we call into his show?

[danda]

snowballs anyone? :p

[Publicani]

Ron should refuse to talk to hannity anymore, publicly call him an embarassment to conservatism and to journalism and then call him a statist.
I agree. Maybe a major speech is needed about Hannity, Rush, and Levin.

[blakjak]

noooooooooooo he said "why is Ron Paul getting a pass on his newsletters. That's coming up next"

Also, the interview has been cancelled.

The interview is not cancelled - he will be on later.

[RonPaulCult]

Can we call into his show?

You can try, but they won't let you on if you say you're a Ron Paul supporter.

Please only call in if you can handle yourself well on the phone. These guys are pros at destroying people they don't agree with.

If you ARE good on the phone, I do say jam his phone lines. Just don't tell them what you REALLY want to talk about or again, they'll hang up on your.

[jmdrake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gst-Ryh3g
So it begins...

[ForLibertyFight]

Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.

[RonPaulCult]

The interview is not cancelled - he will be on later.

Wanna bet 10,000 dollars? It's been cancelled.

[ItsTime]

Lets see, Perry runs super anti-gay ads and his poll numbers go up in Iowa. I don't see how this could hurt Ron at all, even with the fact that Ron did not write the letters.

[sailingaway]

I said the newsletters could be an issue, and RP will have to handle it better this time. if everyone thinks it's no big deal, then what's the worry? I just think it needs to be better handled, is all.

because Hannity had Ron to go on, and should have given him an opportunity to respond. CANCELLING his appearance and blindsiding him has to be to specifically let the story spread and percolate before Ron can respond, so he has to chase it. That is really lousy.

[Johncjackson]

Only if he would say the truth, which is that they absolutely weren't written by him, then it wouldn't be a problem.

I don't think he's ever going to tell the full truth that some people want. He's too loyal, at the expense of political gains. Personally I think there is someone else who could make it a lot easier on him, but it's not going to happen.

[brushfire]

hannity - what a f'n statist...

[sailingaway]

I agree. Maybe a major speech is needed about Hannity, Rush, and Levin.

That would turn a ton of partisan people against him and distract from the issues -- a place where he wins.

[RP Supporter]

Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.

Then we'd have story after story of the media asking "why would Ron Paul hire a racist to write his newsletters?"

You can't win with these guys. Luckily, I don't think the Republican electorate really enjoys conservatives being labeled as racists. They get enough of it in their day to day lives opposing Obama. Hopefully this backfires and brings more people to Paul (Ala Rand and Aqua Buddah.)

[Johncjackson]

Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.

I agree. I don't think Paul is going to name names. If the writer wants to come clean it's up to him. I'm not naming names either, but it's pretty obvious.

[erowe1]

The interview is not cancelled - he will be on later.

Who was it that started the rumor that it was cancelled?

Wait, let me guess...

[sailingaway]

I don't think he's ever going to tell the full truth that some people want. He's too loyal, at the expense of political gains. Personally I think there is someone else who could make it a lot easier on him, but it's not going to happen.

He didn't write them. That is all people need to know. He didn't write or approve those handful of statements over 10 years, and they don't sound remotely like him, and he has a thirty year youtube library anyone can dip into to prove that to themselves.

[RonPaulCult]

I agree. I don't think Paul is going to name names. If the writer wants to come clean it's up to him. I'm not naming names either, but it's pretty obvious.

I don't think Ron knows who wrote them. He was totally not involved for some time.

[The One]

I'm embarrassed to admit that 4 years ago I overreacted and freaked out when the newsletters came out. It turned out to be no big deal, and I ended up looking like a jackass. Everybody chill...and save yourselves the embarrassment.

...or just go ahead and freak out. :rolleyes:

[Matthew Zak]

Someone should call in (in the screening process tell them they want to tell Hannity he's a great american and that he's making american proud or something) and when they get on, tell Hannity that he's in denial if he thinks this is still his party.

[joshnorris14]

I don't see why people think this was Lew Rockwell. The guy has done enough for the Libertarian movement to get the benefit of the doubt and not get blacklisted.

[RonPaulCult]

Who was it that started the rumor that it was cancelled?

Wait, let me guess...

MC changed the official "Ron Paul on Hannity 12/14" thread earlier today and said that Hannity cancelled.

Plus Hannity hasn't said anything about Ron Paul coming on today (and didn't say it yesterday either)

[Sola_Fide]

Wait, is this thing canceled or not? Collins might lose his officiality after this...

[RP Supporter]

Hannity should be ashamed of himself. Attacking another Republican. He's the one who always spouts Reagan's 11th commandment. Seriously, has there ever been another case where he's attacked a Republican? And since when did he become so concerned about racism, given some of the things he's defended over the years. :rolleyes:

[Publicani]

I may be stupid or insensitive. I've read all the quotes from the newsletters and didn't find a single racist quote there.

[low preference guy]

I don't see why people think this was Lew Rockwell. The guy has done enough for the Libertarian movement to get the benefit of the doubt and not get blacklisted.

Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.

[ItsTime]

Behind the scenes of Hannity finding out Ron Paul's latest poll numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc

[Original_Intent]

snowballs anyone? :p

I said in another thread on this - Don't send a snowball to do a rock's job.

[eleganz]

Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.

Then we need to fully dissect all of this because Ron will be in the limelight if he wins Iowa and the media could do a lot of damage to him in that one week before NH.

Everything needs to be put out and if we present the information in a balanced and unbiased manner the media might even use it...they use our military donations figures..why not?

[joshnorris14]

Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.

Exactly. in their hitpiece they called Rothbard out for promoting racism to tie the paleoconservative and paleolibertarian movements together.

The disdain they have for Rothbardians makes their bias very obvious.

[Canderson]

Did he already talk about it?? Hes blithering on about something else now.

[Publicani]

Hannity is back from the break and is talking about Christmas spirit. Oh shit...

[raider4paul]

Did I miss his propaganda? He's talking about the pipeline.

[RonPaulCult]

Did he already talk about it?? Hes blithering on about something else now.

Nope. He teased it about 20 minutes ago - I figured he would be bringing it up soon but I guess it will be later in the show.

Sorry to make you guys listen to this trash.

[wgadget]

Is someone going to call and complain about this Lee Kington moderator at his forum, the guy who trashes Ron Paul with lies?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?337503-Hannity-s-own-problem-with-failing-to-monitor-what-is-published-in-his-name./page4

[sailingaway]

Then we need to fully dissect all of this because Ron will be in the limelight if he wins Iowa and the media could do a lot of damage to him in that one week before NH.

Everything needs to be put out and if we present the information in a balanced and unbiased manner the media might even use it...they use our military donations figures..why not?

no we don't. We only need to show Ron didn't write them. If they don't want to vote for Ron because he didn't exercise sufficient oversight over a separately managed newsletter using his name, while he was NOT in public office but was practicing medicine full time, refusing to take medicare or medicaid, yet serving some of Texas's poorest people in Brazoria county, at reduced prices or for free, never turning away anyone of any race or religion because they couldn't pay, then let them.

[economics102]

no we don't. We only need to show Ron didn't write them. If they don't want to vote for Ron because he didn't exercise sufficient oversight over a separately managed newsletter using his name, while he was NOT in public office but was practicing medicine full time, refusing to take medicare or medicaid, yet serving some of Texas's poorest people in Brazoria county, at reduced prices or for free, never turning away anyone of any race or religion because they couldn't pay, then let them.

Wow. You really nailed that one to the wall. :p

[ShaneEnochs]

Just said there are polls out now that has both Gingrich and Romney beating Obama.

[ShaneEnochs]

Just said "we'll examine Ron Paul's newsletter and why the media isn't reporting it, and whether or not he's gotten a pass for them."

[Publicani]

no we don't. We only need to show Ron didn't write them. Not sure even this is needed. What's the big deal? Something was said that taken out of the context might be misinterpreted, so what?

[RonPaulCult]

"later on we'll examine Ron Paul's newsletter and all the things in it and why the media has ignored it. Has the media given him a pass"

He just said this, although I think Mitt is on next.

[Publicani]

I am beginning to suspect he's bringing the newsletters to make sure RP supporters are listening to his freaking show. I can't stand him anymore. Boring. I am out.

[sailingaway]

No they had a nasty red meat tone to them. Ron doesn't use red meat, period, however. It is something unusual about him, even at the more 'conventional' level of red meat. He considers it demagoguery. It goes to whether he is who he seems to be, and it is who he IS that gets him votes.

[dbill27]

If anyone calls in perhaps they should mention that not 2 days ago hannity and cain were on his show bashes the media for the blatant bias and personal smear campaigns against the GOP canidates. I mean seriously, hannity is a piece of shit. "Why the media isn't reporting it"? Because they already fucking have sean, years ago and it was baseless. The question is, why are you reporting it?

[wgadget]

Ron Paul has class.

Hannity and Friends--not so much.

This is how we win.

[erowe1]

MC changed the official "Ron Paul on Hannity 12/14" thread earlier today and said that Hannity cancelled.

Plus Hannity hasn't said anything about Ron Paul coming on today (and didn't say it yesterday either)

I was just kidding. I knew who the culprit was.

[danda]

Rather than being defensive, Ron (and we) need to go on the offensive about this.

1) Ron, (and we) should challenge anyone to dig up any audio or video from Ron's entire lifetime of him personally saying anything racist. Why are we confident it can't be done? Because racism requires classifying people into groups rather than treating them as individuals. Ron Paul's core beliefs, which he has consistently held his entire life, require treating everyone as an individual, uniquely responsible for his or her actions.

2) We should dig up audio, video, and essays where Ron Paul speaks out against racism. He has often made the point about groups vs individuals, so should not be too hard to find.

3) perhaps create a website or facebook group: ronpaulagainstracism.com, or something like that. Which highlights this audio, video, essays, and quotes.

4) We have no control over this, but I think It would help if Ron Paul would express more remorse over the newletter quotes and apologize for not scrutinizing them more carefully before publishing, as they did bear his name. People forgive much more readily when real remorse is expressed. And it would help if he would name the author.

This is something the grassroots can do. Does anyone have the the time and energy to run with it?

[bunklocoempire]

My thanks to the souls listening and reporting, for goodness sakes be careful and don't get any on ya! ;)

Taking one for the team has been raised to a whole new height! Bring Oxygen!

Bunkloco

[phill4paul]

Hannity is having Newt and Mitt on. Then he says he will discuss the newsletters. No air time for Ron to rebut.

[Standing Liberty]

Just tuned in for a minute. Love how he has love
fest with both Newt and Mitt, then says how the media is
ignoring these newsletters. Hannity is satist hack
dipshit.

[Canderson]

If anyone calls in, dismiss the newletter, and bring up military donations.

[ord33]

Watch out for an additional attack saying that Dr. Paul profited by making over $1 million from these newsletters over that time from subscription fees. A guy on Facebook was going on and on about it trying to draw a supposed correlation that they profited from them and how could they not know the content.

[RonPaulCult]

Just mentioned the newsletters again, and that Ron Paul claims he didn't know anything about them.

Won't stop Hannity from reading the quotes though I bet, and linking them to Ron Paul. Scumbag.

[dmitchell]

Has Ron Paul ever offered a direct apology for the newsletter content? I seem to remember him being combative when confronted with them. Why not have the campaign work up a sincere, sound-bite length apology that Ron can use during debates and interviews? The letters may have been ghost written but Ron Paul does actually have some degree of moral responsibility for them. Don't try to defend it, just offer a sincere apology and let the chips fall where they may.

[Justinfrom1776]

This show is such bullshit.. Hate Obama, Hate Obama, Hate Obama, Commercial, Commercial, Hate Obama, Hate Obama, Commercial, Hate Obama.. He can't even get into why he hates Obama anymore because his Neocon sweethearts Newt & Mitt promote the same Ideology.. People are wising up to this bull shit.

[Carole]

It is hilarious the way the MSM "teases" Dr. Paul to keep viewers tuned in. They absolutely know their ratings go up when he makes an appearance, so they milk it for as long as possible. :D :rolleyes: :toady:

[wgadget]

It is hilarious the way the MSM "teases" Dr. Paul to keep viewers tuned in. They absolutely know their ratings go up when he makes an appearance, so they milk it for as long as possible. :D :rolleyes: :toady:

But I thought Ron was canceled?

[Publicani]

Rather than being defensive, Ron (and we) need to go on the offensive about this.

1) Ron, (and we) should challenge anyone to dig up any audio or video from Ron's entire lifetime of him personally saying anything racist. Why are we confident it can't be done? Because racism requires classifying people into groups rather than treating them as individuals. Ron Paul's core beliefs, which he has consistently held his entire life, require treating everyone as an individual, uniquely responsible for his or her actions.

2) We should dig up audio, video, and essays where Ron Paul speaks out against racism. He has often made the point about groups vs individuals, so should not be too hard to find.

3) perhaps create a website or facebook group: ronpaulagainstracism.com, or something like that. Which highlights this audio, video, essays, and quotes.

4) We have no control over this, but I think It would help if Ron Paul would express more remorse over the newletter quotes and apologize for not scrutinizing them more carefully before publishing, as they did bear his name. People forgive much more readily when real remorse is expressed. And it would help if he would name the author.

This is something the grassroots can do. Does anyone have the the time and energy to run with it?

ALl they want is to control the agenda. You want to roll over and hand it to them?

[rich34]

This is about the same damn time the MSM brought this shit up back in 07. Right after the Dec. 16th money bomb actually. I reckon Hannity feels the need to go ahead and get this started so in a week or so it'll have legs. They're mad because Ron BLASTED Newt for his big government NON-conservative ways. I'm sure Hannity is also pissed himself for being called a statist which he IS! My question to Hannity is, why did Ron have to do the reporting and remind everyone that Newt is nothing more than a big government Liberal republican? Why is your punk ass wanting to elect another liberal John McCain? Sean Hannity shouldn't surprise anyone, this is the same guy that endorsed Rudy Ghoooliani...

Guys, this money bomb better be HUGE because the campaign is going to need all the money it can get to counter the coming attacks. I hope those football players that recently came out and endorsed Ron have a lot of friends and can convince them to donate this Friday. Not only that, but those in the military and alternative health field better pony up. I'm also hoping there are some closet Hollywood stars that are willing to donate and support Ron, you listening Jon Stewart? Call up your friends, buddy! This is going to get big time dirty folks, get ready.

[Inkblots]

My question is, what is the best strategy for countering the newsletter smear when people bring it up, whether in person or online? Should we:
- Simply state that Paul didn't write them and leave it at that. Possibly point out that the prose style is totally different from Dr. Paul's and that the writings contradict what he's written before and since

- Go into detail and explain that during the period when the letters with offensive content went out – 1989 to 1994, Ron Paul had left the GOP in protest over the uncontrolled rise in deficit spending under Reagan, and then left politics altogether in disgust following his crushing defeat as the Libertarian nominee in 1988. And so he had returned to private practice as a doctor and was paying little attention to national politics and, unfortunately, no attention to the various newsletters he had started while in politics in the early ‘80s. So Ron Paul or any campaign for him had nothing to do with that content, and he wasn't even aware of it..

- Talk about what Ron has actually written about racism, things like: "Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

- Talk about the fact that he doesn't even know who wrote them. I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I've seen this point made before: "Apparently, the problem stems from Dr Paul's libertarian concept of copyright: as a libertarian minded thinker, Dr Paul publishes his newsletter without copyright; as a consequence, throughout the years, many individuals and groups with zero affiliation with the congressman have used his name, without first seeking or obtaining permission, and, wishing to promote their own ideas and writings, have republished Paul's congressional newsletter, and added their own editorials and articles, in an effort to add credibility to their racist views."

I only wonder if that last point is correct, because so many people seem to think Lew Rockwell wrote the bad stuff.

[gls]

This is about the same damn time the MSM brought this shit up back in 07. Right after the Dec. 16th money bomb actually.

Actually last time this was brought up the night before the New Hampshire primary. It was a coordinated attack by Reason Magazine and some other liberal website.

[JCF]

Lol Romney just listing off his talking points.

[Liberty74]

Third Party run if the statist and fake conservatives (neocons) go after Ron on this to destroy his chances. Hannity is such a shill.

[AlexG]

Wow Mitt comes out swinging at Newt lol

[Carole]

:rolleyes:

[PauliticsPolitics]

Wow Mitt comes out swinging at Newt lol
Yea, it sounds like he watched all of Ron's adverts.

[Tunink]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dUoxruCh8c&feature=related

[Publicani]

My question is, what is the best strategy for countering the newsletter smear when people bring it up, whether in person or online?

"Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual."
—Ron Paul, CNN, January 10, 2008

Let me repeat:

" The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?'"

[sailingaway]

Watch out for an additional attack saying that Dr. Paul profited by making over $1 million from these newsletters over that time from subscription fees. A guy on Facebook was going on and on about it trying to draw a supposed correlation that they profited from them and how could they not know the content.

It is hard to find logic in internet poison because it usually grows 'operator game style' with people recharacterizing the nonsense they heard from someone else. So they are saying over the 10 years it ran there were a million in subscriber fees? and there are what, 10 questionable sentences over those ten years? So we should find out how many sentences there were in the newsletters over ten years to divide and find out the percentage of fees 'tainted' by bad content? And then find out how much fo those subscriber fees to the independent editor actually went to Ron as a licensing fee for his name, and then apply that percentage to see how much of what went to Ron was tainted? And then decide if he should have known in advance this would happen and as a private citizen not politician should have protected himself?

I find that argument in the 'don't feed the trolls' category.

[Inkblots]

Has Ron Paul ever offered a direct apology for the newsletter content? I seem to remember him being combative when confronted with them. Why not have the campaign work up a sincere, sound-bite length apology that Ron can use during debates and interviews? The letters may have been ghost written but Ron Paul does actually have some degree of moral responsibility for them. Don't try to defend it, just offer a sincere apology and let the chips fall where they may.

But he has. Ron Paul said, "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. ... 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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

[wgadget]

Take-away:

1. Ron did not write them.
2. Ron is not a racist.

End of story.

[wgadget]

The accuser has the burden of proof, right?

Let's see PROOF Ron wrote them.

[SilentBull]

I'm a little nervous but Republicans must be tired of being called "racists" by now. I think the initial reaction will be that people won't believe it, since they're so used to this.

[The Midnight Ride]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw

[Publicani]

funny, Drudge came out with the headline that MSNBC calls Romney KKK. Let's start the republican political debate: "Who is the worst racist, uh?"

[blakjak]

"Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual."
—Ron Paul, CNN, January 10, 2008



wow. now that is how you handle the issue

[Inkblots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw

Great video!

[dmitchell]

But he has. Ron Paul said, "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. ... 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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.

[Give me liberty]

So since i dont like hannity what is happening now? is hannity attacking Ron Paul on those newsletters? sigh those again? its like there heads are stuck in 08 or something i would know if Ron Paul is on hannity.

[Carole]

Who the hell called who here? Looks like stupid Newt got his wires crossed as Hannity jumps in immediately to "correct" him. We called you. Newt. :D


so little scrutiny of it."
It looks like it's a strategy. Will hear about the newsletters tomorrow during the debate as well.

[theczar1776]

Before accepting the premise that the quotes are racist please read the following.


http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/#axzz1gWszdzjZ

[Brian4Liberty]

Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.

Wasn't there already a confession about this?


I will confess, I wrote them, but Murray Rothbard helped me with the spelling. I was more of a songwriter. It was satire and hyperbole. I'm terribly sorry, I'll attempt to avoid this in the future, but I may not be able to help myself, cause I'm Rick James, bitch!

;)


I may be stupid or insensitive. I've read all the quotes from the newsletters and didn't find a single racist quote there.

It is certainly overblown.

[wgadget]

That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.

Apologize for something he didn't do?

[Inkblots]

That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.

Well, I kinda thought taking moral responsibility for something was the whole point of an apology?

[JCF]

So since i dont like hannity what is happening now? is hannity attacking Ron Paul on those newsletters? sigh those again? its like there heads are stuck in 08 or something i would know if Ron Paul is on hannity.

He's talking to Romney. Newsletter discussion is probably up next.

[airborne373]

Sean Hannity = Rachael Maddow

[Give me liberty]

He's talking to Romney. Newsletter discussion is probably up next.
with paul i assume?

[Carole]

No, tune in to the Fox debate to hear Ron Paul talk about this. :D

[wgadget]

with paul i assume?

Ron was canceled. Hannity the shill will be talking badly about Ron behind his back.

Did you expect anything less?

[JCF]

with paul i assume?


Negative. He's talking about it with someone from the American Spectator.

[JamesButabi]

- Talk about what Ron has actually written about racism, things like: "Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."


Its so blatantly obvious that Ron didn't write these newsletter nor is he racist. I think the quoted method is the only way to address it ala Rand and the civil rights nonsense

[rgampell]

Apologize for something he didn't do?

It's not just about apologizing; he needs to look and sound ASHAMED of them. And he does not. He should also say that it will certainly cost him some votes, and that it OUGHT to. IMO, his CNN answer in which he pivoted to racism charges sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black."

[sailingaway]

That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.

you know, that is the kind of thing I hear from those who don't want Ron to win under any circumstances. They just keep raising the bar on what Ron 'has to do to put it to rest'. Apologize using their specific phrases, or give the media a goat for sacrifice in who he might guess wrote them, or something. None of that goes to his quality as a presidential candidate.

[JCF]

He's going to keep talking to Romney after the break, but he did say this:

"Later on, Ron Paul, [newsletters] are there things in them that the media hasn't vetted yet?"

Talking to someone with the American Spectator about it.

[RonPaulCult]

Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator? That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.

[iamse7en]

Did he say jeffrey lord from AmSpec? Uh oh... here comes the fire and hatred.

[gjdavis60]

He's going to have Jeffery Lord on to talk about the newsletters!! The battle lines are drawn.

[sailingaway]

It's not just about apologizing; he needs to look and sound ASHAMED of them. And he does not. He should also say that it will certainly cost him some votes, and that it OUGHT to. IMO, his CNN answer in which he pivoted to racism charges sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black."

are you working for some other candidate?

[lew]

You guys aren't being consistent here. Don't act like that if there was some Newsletter that went out for 20 years under Romney's or Newt's name, that we wouldn't be clamoring to make commercials about it.

The fact is that these Newsletters exist. They've always been the bane in Ron Paul's possibility to rise in the polls. It doesn't matter what Raimondo thinks about the issue or you or I. What matters is how Paul will respond when the MSM says "So, in your Newsletter that bares your name, what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"

The Campaign can't be so stupid to think they can just ignore this, refuse to say who the author is, state it's 'ancient history', or any of that mumbo jumbo and expect it to go away. The masses will want some heartfelt apology that the material is downright awful and that he utterly regrets it. Anything less, and the MSM will hammer this. And we will lose. This is the pivotal thorn in his entire campaign.

[RonPaulCult]

Apparently this guy is often going after Paul:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re

[Xchange]

Lord is worse than Levin.


Major league douche bag

[Inkblots]

Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator? That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.

Jeff Lord? Oh geez, not that hack.

[iamse7en]

Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator? That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.

See this for a taste... I believe Jack Hunter (and maybe Tom Woods) has gone up against the guy before...

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1_____enUS397US397&gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Aspectator.org+ron+paul+jeffrey+lord

[airborne373]

Sean Hannity and his clown college compatriot Rush Limbaugh have lost 30% of their audiences lying for the state.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-hannity-imus-radio-ratings-2011-5

[sailingaway]

He's going to keep talking to Romney after the break, but he did say this:

"Later on, Ron Paul, [newsletters] are there things in them that the media hasn't vetted yet?"

Talking to someone with the American Spectator about it.

Jeffery Lord? LOL! Lord and Levin, call out the baying hounds.

[Jtorsella]

How did this happen? I thought Rand had silenced Hannity.

[Brian4Liberty]

Hannity will be interviewing Jeffery Lord, American Spectator:


In August 2011, Jeffrey Lord wrote an article in The American Spectator which was critical of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), and the views of some of Ron Paul's supporters.[5] It sparked considerable debate within the conservative movement.

[lew]

are you working for some other candidate?

oh shut up. If you think Paul can weather a charge of racism, with the EVIDENCE BEING A NEWSLETTER WITH HIS OWN NAME ACROSS THE BANNER, simply by stating what he said in 2008, you're a moron. As Paul rises in the polls, he will be hit hard with this. And he needs to provide an answer that the masses will accept. If he acts like Cain and just tries to ignore it or say it's history, he will lose, exactly like Cain.

[Xchange]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE9jLCUu010

[ord33]

Apparently this guy is often going after Paul:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re

It looks like he makes a living by hating Ron Paul: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=jeffrey+lord+american+spectator+ron+paul&pbx=1&oq=%22jeffrey+lord%22+%22american+spectat&aq=1&aqi=g2&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=1252l12166l0l15181l47l26l5l0l0l2l2197l17719 l5-1.6.5.2.1l17l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=6b7d8689dc994193&biw=1366&bih=667

Some really nasty stuff.

[Publicani]

Hannity is bringing Jeffrey Lord from American spectator.
Tom woods responded to this crap a w few months ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8

[specsaregood]

what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"


Thats all? Are you saying that isn't true?

[wgadget]

Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator? That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.

OMG...LORD IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEOCON LIARS OUT THERE.

I heard him one day on Medved, and he is a fool whose logic makes NO SENSE.

[Give me liberty]

Hannity will be interviewing Jeffery Lord, American Spectator:
Ah you mean this werdio Jeffery?
http://progressivenation.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/jeffrey-lord.jpg

[sailingaway]

You guys aren't being consistent here. Don't act like that if there was some Newsletter that went out for 20 years under Romney's or Newt's name, that we wouldn't be clamoring to make commercials about it.

The fact is that these Newsletters exist. They've always been the bane in Ron Paul's possibility to rise in the polls. It doesn't matter what Raimondo thinks about the issue or you or I. What matters is how Paul will respond when the MSM says "So, in your Newsletter that bares your name, what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"

The Campaign can't be so stupid to think they can just ignore this, refuse to say who the author is, state it's 'ancient history', or any of that mumbo jumbo and expect it to go away. The masses will want some heartfelt apology that the material is downright awful and that he utterly regrets it. Anything less, and the MSM will hammer this. And we will lose. This is the pivotal thorn in his entire campaign.

Ron wouldn't, and no, we would snark about them, but not expect it to be such a huge deal when everyone knows he didn't write them. They always start at the 'he said' rather than 'it was written in a 'Ron Paul Newsletter''' and only later in the media cycle concede he didn't write them. They would not give this treatment to anyone else over what at most was a lack of oversight in a personal business matter.

And you know why they wouldn't with others, and why they do with Ron?

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

The man is as clean as a whistle.

[Inkblots]

Jeff Lord is an ahistorical twit who doesn't understand anything about the conservative position, lies or is genuinely ignorant of America's foreign policy throughout the 20th century, and thinks simply asserting Ron Paul is a liberal and a racist is a winning argument.

The doofus even called Ron Paul a "neo-liberal", hilariously failing to grasp that that is an actual academic term for the foreign policy Jeff Lord himself espouses!

[JamesButabi]

Guess he didn't get enough snowballs last time. Some people never learn

[Havax]

I'm sure Hannity got the word from above to cancel the interview with Ron since the plan is now to trash him as hard as possible. I fully expect the debate tomorrow to be absolutely absurd and dirty.

[wgadget]

Sean Hannity and his clown college compatriot Rush Limbaugh have lost 30% of their audiences lying for the state.

http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-hannity-imus-radio-ratings-2011-5

Fantastic news!

[69360]

oh shut up. If you think Paul can weather a charge of racism, with the EVIDENCE BEING A NEWSLETTER WITH HIS OWN NAME ACROSS THE BANNER, simply by stating what he said in 2008, you're a moron. As Paul rises in the polls, he will be hit hard with this. And he needs to provide an answer that the masses will accept. If he acts like Cain and just tries to ignore it or say it's history, he will lose, exactly like Cain.

Newt got away with racism without hardly a blink. "Spanish is the language of the Ghetto" "Palestinians are an invented people"

This is a GOP primary.

Plus nobody believes somebody with Ron's record wrote them.

It's not the big deal people on here are making it out to be. It's a dying gasp of the Neocons before their world gets turned upside down in 3 weeks.

[lew]

Thats all? Are you saying that isn't true?

Cool. Expect to lose the election with this tripe.

[dmitchell]

Well, I kinda thought taking moral responsibility for something was the whole point of an apology?
It isn't. Can you think of any time in your life when someone wronged you and you would have been satisfied with, "I take moral responsibility for it?" Need to hear those words, "I'm sorry," in my opinion.

[69360]

I'm sure Hannity got the word from above to cancel the interview with Ron since the plan is now to trash him as hard as possible. I fully expect the debate tomorrow to be absolutely absurd and dirty.

Cavuto won't throw Ron under the bus.

[RonPaulCult]

The good news is that I think Hannity is going on vacation for the next few weeks. Win!

[Brian4Liberty]

Hannity is sucking us in for ratings. More commercials than usual.

[davidhperry]

Please breath and remain calm. We knew the newsletter story would be rehashed at some point, and this is expected. If you think RP isn't ready to handle this, then you don't know RP. However, if he can't handle intense criticism like this, then he's probably not cut out for the presidency. :|

[Austin]

3) perhaps create a website or facebook group: ronpaulagainstracism.com, or something like that. Which highlights this audio, video, essays, and quotes.

Ron Paul is Racist (http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/)

[JCF]

Ron Paul is Racist (http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/)

:eek:





..:D

[specsaregood]

Cool. Expect to lose the election with this tripe.
I see you didn't answer the question. It is rational, it has nothing to do with any specific genetics though.

[lucent]

Thats all? Are you saying that isn't true?

Hence, why it always fizzles out. They aren't actually racist. Politically incorrect, yes, but not racist. The only people who really care are progressives and people who hate Ron anyway.

[gjdavis60]

So I wonder how Lord will square his accusations that Paul is a racist AND a liberal? Maybe he'll even accuse Ron of being an anarchist! Ooooh.

[Captain Shays]

I said in another thread on this - Don't send a snowball to do a rock's job.

Rocks inside the snowballs!!!!!

[RonPaulCult]

Cavuto won't throw Ron under the bus.

Cavuto may get to ask a few questions, but he isn't the moderator as somebody wrongly said in the forums the other day. That Bret kid will be the moderator.

Neil will ask maybe ONE question to Ron Paul if we're lucky.

[wgadget]

Hannity is sucking us in for ratings. More commercials than usual.

'Cept I'm not in. I'm here.

[Brian4Liberty]

Newt got away with racism without hardly a blink. "Spanish is the language of the Ghetto" "Palestinians are an invented people"


Newt can do anything. He is the GOP establishment candidate.

[wgadget]

So Hannity CANCELS Ron's interview, and replaces him with Romney, Gingrich and Jeffery Lord?


LOL

[dmitchell]

It's not just about apologizing; he needs to look and sound ASHAMED of them. And he does not. He should also say that it will certainly cost him some votes, and that it OUGHT to. IMO, his CNN answer in which he pivoted to racism charges sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black."
Yeah I pretty much agree with this.

[Sola_Fide]

Haha...Hannity is bringing out the neocon "big guns" Jeffrey Lord. This guy got shamed a few months ago by Tom Woods.

[Carole]

I disagree. Allow Dr. Paul to do his own talking.

[ord33]

Often here, people throw out the word "neocon" without necessarily it having merit. In this case, I think American Spectator is basically the foundation magazine for NeoConservatives. So this is who we are really battling and they are vehemently opposed to Ron Paul.

Here is just one recent piece: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13/a-new-neoconservatism

[wgadget]

Haha...Hannity is bringing out the neocon "big guns"...in Jeffrey Lord. This guy got shamed a few months who by Tom Woods.

Hey, TOM! Incoming....

[JCF]

Talking to Romney:

"If there's one candidate that hasn't been vetted it's Ron Paul, because there's a lot of things about him that scares the living daylights out of me."

[ShaneEnochs]

Says Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't been vetted, and he scares Hannity.

[Johncjackson]

I don't think Ron knows who wrote them. He was totally not involved for some time.

He was the president of the company and had his name on them. As bad as it sounds if he did write it ( which he didn't), it might sound worse to say he was running a business and publishing a newsletter printed by the company owned by his long time campaign manager with his family members and long time associates on the board, yet he had no idea who was working for his business. He knows who wrote them- he's just not going to throw anyone else under the bus.

[sailingaway]

It isn't. Can you think of any time in your life when someone wronged you and you would have been satisfied with, "I take moral responsibility for it?" Need to hear those words, "I'm sorry," in my opinion.

Too many people have too many opinions on what the perfect words are. He has issued a variety of statements. Pick your favorite, but he can't chase everyone's perfect phrasing. In addition, in my experience people demanding these 'proofs' aren't really swayable, their intent is to keep the issue open, is all.

I looked at this issue myself first before becoming a supporter and it pops like a bubble. There is nothing there. Those who dislike Ron grasp it fiercely and won't let go because it is the only speck there is.

[Liberty74]

I'm sure Hannity got the word from above to cancel the interview with Ron since the plan is now to trash him as hard as possible. I fully expect the debate tomorrow to be absolutely absurd and dirty.

The establishment and statists are wetting their pants after the recent polling data. Hopefully Paul and the campaign has something up their sleeve. I honestly think Paul purposely kept a low profile during all these months to rise at the right point in time which is now. Hence, they know the attacks from the establishment will feel like WWIII. Get ready to HOLD.

[iamse7en]

Is it a coincidence that he's really going after Ron Paul after all these polls? :)

[Xchange]

Hannity is trolling for ratings

[rgampell]

Well, I wasn't going to tell the guy to shut up, but it was certainly a bizarre comeback.

I agree that he should NOT go on the defensive, even as far as he did in the last campaign. There is really no answer that is acceptable: either he knew and looked the other way, or he didn't know and showed "poor judgment." Anyone who was around last time knows that these are his two choices. Again, I really think he should just tell the truth (as he has before) and look/sound ashamed. Any return-fire just keeps the battle going, so to speak.

[Brian4Liberty]

Says Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't been vetted, and he scares Hannity.

He's going full FUD!

[dmitchell]

you know, that is the kind of thing I hear from those who don't want Ron to win under any circumstances. They just keep raising the bar on what Ron 'has to do to put it to rest'. Apologize using their specific phrases, or give the media a goat for sacrifice in who he might guess wrote them, or something. None of that goes to his quality as a presidential candidate.
I don't think Paul should say who wrote them, if he even knows. But I also don't think Paul needs to satisfy the media. He needs to satisfy potential voters. In my opinion, that means saying "I'm sorry," not being defensive and making some totally unconvincing comments about how it's "impossible" for a libertarian to say something racist sounding.

[AlexG]

Is it a coincidence that he's really going after Ron Paul after all these polls? :)

Just a few weeks ago he was all buddy buddy with Ron and saying "the only thing I disagree with you on is your foreign policy." Now that Ron is going to sweep up, he's digging up old news

[RonPauledbyYoutube]

Has any on notice when you Google site:spectator.org ron paul jeffrey lord

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1_____enUS397US397&gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Aspectator.org+ron+paul+jeffrey+lord

This is the first result:


Trump Debate Highlights Ron Paul, Romney ... - American Spectator
spectator.org/blog/2011/12/07/trump-debate-highlights-ron-pa
Dec 7, 2011 – Jeffery Lord| 12.7.11 @ 10:41AM. You're right! I HATE Ron Paul... plus, my boss gives me extra cash if I write smear pieces on him. :). Reply to ...

Yet when you go to the link in American Spectator blog it doesn't show anywhere. It looks like its a reply to someon else's comment. But what caught my eye is this "my boss gives me extra cash if I write smear pieces on him."

EDIT: Never mind, it is the reply to the first comment. It is a despicable comment nontheless.

[trey4sports]

Ron should really just shake this shit off. We didn't need Hannity then and we dont need him now.

[sailingaway]

It was ten sentences by someone else, over the course of a decade, over twenty years ago. This is demogoguery of the precise sort Ron does not do ---PERSONALLY attacking people rather than sticking to issues. Just another reason he is better than his opposition.

[JohnGalt23g]

Talking to Romney:

"If there's one candidate that hasn't been vetted it's Ron Paul, because there's a lot of things about him that scares the living daylights out of me."

Someone should remind Sean that children are easily frightened.

Great Americans? Not so easily.

[Liberty74]

Just a few weeks ago he was all buddy buddy with Ron and saying "the only thing I disagree with you on is your foreign policy." Now that Ron is going to sweep up, he's digging up old news

Exactly! Goes to show Hannity is a SHILL.

[Johncjackson]

He didn't write them. That is all people need to know. He didn't write or approve those handful of statements over 10 years, and they don't sound remotely like him, and he has a thirty year youtube library anyone can dip into to prove that to themselves.

I think that's fine and convincing for people who are more familiar with his history. However, when it comes to elections, most of the voters are going to be mostly ignorant and you need the votes of the ignorant. There is no way to win only getting votes of people who are that familiar and go that in-depth for a specific candidate. He needs voters that will never post on RPF or never donate to the campaign or care about the history of the movement and all that stuff. Most people are not familiar with his style enough to be able to dismiss it, and he was the head of the company for all those years and everyone involved was a family member, campaign staffer, or other close associate or someone still in their circle. I don't think if Gingrich said he didn't know about all the payments his company received from Freddie Mac and healthcare orgs because he was too busy giving speeches and let others handle his business with little oversight, that would fly with us, would it?

That's just my opinion and thoughts on the politics of it. I respect your opinions.

[Carole]

So he is talking with Romney and comes back after the break. While Romney is still on the air with him, Hannity remarks about Dr. Paul to audience the newsletters and lots of other scary things about Dr. Paul. Then he continues his conservation with Romney.

What a piece of stuff he is. :toady: :rolleyes:

[Publicani]

Too many people have too many opinions on what the perfect words are. He has issued a variety of statements. Pick your favorite, but he can't chase everyone's perfect phrasing. In addition, in my experience people demanding these 'proofs' aren't really swayable, their intent is to keep the issue open, is all.

I looked at this issue myself first before becoming a supporter and it pops like a bubble. There is nothing there. Those who dislike Ron grasp it fiercely and won't let go because it is the only speck there is.

well put.

[Inkblots]

It was ten sentences by someone else, over the course of a decade, over twenty years ago.

Actually, it was over 5 years, 1989 to 1994. Not coincidentally, that was the same period when Paul had left politics in disgust to return to practicing medicine. I'm not at all surprised he wasn't paying attention to his old newsletters during that time - he had left politics!

[rich34]

Ron needs to somehow run out the clock. I'm not sure how or if it's even possible, but he needs to answer the questions quickly and move onto somthing else. If this starts to gain traction then it's time to bring Rand out as a distraction.

[JCF]

He's done with Romney, newsletters (most likely) up next.

[sailingaway]

I think that's fine and convincing for people who are more familiar with his history. However, when it comes to elections, most of the voters are going to be mostly ignorant and you need the votes of the ignorant. There is no way to win only getting votes of people who are that familiar and go that in-depth for a specific candidate. He needs voters that will never post on RPF or never donate to the campaign or care about the history of the movement and all that stuff. Most people are not familiar with his style enough to be able to dismiss it, and he was the head of the company for all those years and everyone involved was a family member, campaign staffer, or other close associate or someone still in their circle. I don't think if Gingrich said he didn't know about all the payments his company received from Freddie Mac and healthcare orgs because he was too busy giving speeches and let others handle his business with little oversight, that would fly with us, would it?

That's just my opinion and thoughts on the politics of it. I respect your opinions.

If you know that much you know it was never HIS business. His business at the time was practicing medicine full time. An ex staffer and friend was let to run a newsletter with his name. In the persona of it being 'his' newsletter, his image was all over it. I'm sure he now regrets not overseeing it better, but it was ten unpleasant statements by some volunteer, not theft or murder we are talking about. Had HE written them it would be a character issue, however. But he didn't.

[Give me liberty]

So he is talking with Romney and comes back after the break. While Romney is still on the air with him, Hannity remarks about Dr. Paul to audience the newsletters and lots of other scary things about Dr. Paul. Then he continues his conservation with Romney.

What a piece of stuff he is. :toady: :rolleyes:
He will do anything for the rathings his down to 20% precent or so.

[dmitchell]

Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).

[Give me liberty]

He's done with Romney, newsletters (most likely) up next.
newsletters? i doubt it.

[Johncjackson]

Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.

Not true. Speculation also comes from people who worked with those involved, other libertarians, and long time FRIENDS of Ron Paul in the libertarian movement, People who were around in the 70s, 80s- present. It is known that Lew Rockwell, Tucker, and some others worked on the newsletters and that mark Elam's company printed them. Thats fact. It is public record. it is not known what writers wrote what exactly, for a fact, because they were all published under the name of Ron Paul. It wasn't like it was a journal or magazine that had author bylines ( This story is by Rockwell, that story is by Rothbard, this is by an intern, and so on). "Ron Paul" wrote them, as that's who is credited, but can't have it both ways. Ron Paul, the human being did not write them.

Also, Rockwell/Rothbard did write statist, racist material under their own names during that time. So just saying that someone is a libertarian individualist, and that somehow makes it impossible is not logical, because obviously self-described libertarians have written material supporting the police state and racist policies ( which goes beyond repugnant personal views). I don't think Rockwell would support some of the stuff he wrote 20 years ago, either. So I'm not saying he is a bad guy now.

[Inkblots]

Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).

Don't think they won't combine them. I'm sure Lord will claim Paul's foreign policy is based on anti-semitism or some stupid ploy like that.

[Steve-in-NY]

I will no longer mention this statists name nor watch/buy/listen to his shows books etc.

[RP Supporter]

I cannot believe people care about the damn newsletters. Iowa's 99% white, and New Hampshire's not far behind. The only people who will give a damn about this sort of thing are the PC liberals who surprise surprise, don't vote in the Republican primary.

And again, Hannity himself has come close to the dog whistle a few times with Obama. Let's pull some of his quotes from 20 years ago. (I know, for example, that he was far more critical of homosexuals back then. Now he claims he's libertarian on the issue. Tut tut Sean. How inappropriate.)

[JCF]

newsletters? i doubt it.

You're right. Next hour.

---

Attacking Ron Paul on 3rd party, saying that his (Paul's) campaigns staff didn't want Hannity to bring up the 3rd party question so Hannity didn't let him on the program.

[sailingaway]

Ron needs to somehow run out the clock. I'm not sure how or if it's even possible, but he needs to answer the questions quickly and move onto somthing else. If this starts to gain traction then it's time to bring Rand out as a distraction.

He just has to say 'this is the situation, this is my answer, if you can't vote for me because of my lack of oversight here, that is certainly your right'.

[ShaneEnochs]

He said he canceled because Ron Paul campaign didn't want Hannity to ask about 3rd party.

[AlexG]

He said he canceled because Ron Paul campaign didn't want Hannity to ask about 3rd party.

source?

[ShaneEnochs]

"We'll let Ron Paul back on the program, but there are things troubling about his background that we'll get into in the next hour"

[ShaneEnochs]

source?

Himself?

[sailingaway]

Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).

no, Levin is apparently the one who sold Hannity on this bill of goods. Levin's thing is also foreign policy. However, everyone knows Ron's foreign policy so now they are going to try to say there is a character issue.

[JCF]

source?

Hannity said just that.

[Lord Xar]

Actually, it was over 5 years, 1989 to 1994. Not coincidentally, that was the same period when Paul had left politics in disgust to return to practicing medicine. I'm not at all surprised he wasn't paying attention to his old newsletters during that time - he had left politics!

If this time period validation is real, then I would say this is a very poweful argument in favour of Ron Paul. We need to remember this and perhaps have the campaign acknowledge that Ron Paul wasn't even in politics at the time, and was running his personal business SERVING minorities!!!

[iamse7en]

Himself?

lol he just said it.

[RonPaulCult]

Producer called out Hannity on lying about the Ron Paul campaign.

[AlexG]

Nevermind, Sean Hannity just said he cancelled the interview because the Paul campaign didnt want Hannity to ask about 3rd party run

[ord33]

Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).

He's even complaining about Daily Paul and their words about Lord's buddy Mark Levin: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27/attention-ron-paul-anti-semiti

[cary]

... what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"


Ron could reply by asking his interrogator if Jesse Jackson and Juan Williams are racist:

Jesse Jackson: (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson):

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

Juan Williams (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-19/entertainment/29970616_1_juan-williams-npr-employee-npr-a):

"Let me just tell you, with the amount of black on black crime in America, I get nervous and I'm a black man."

[dmitchell]

Too many people have too many opinions on what the perfect words are. He has issued a variety of statements. Pick your favorite, but he can't chase everyone's perfect phrasing. In addition, in my experience people demanding these 'proofs' aren't really swayable, their intent is to keep the issue open, is all.
I'm sure that's true of some people. However, I don't think believing that an apology should contain the words "I'm sorry" is really a case of of "too may opinions on what the perfect words are." That's pretty standard for apologies, no?

[Brian4Liberty]

"We'll let Ron Paul back on the program, but there are things troubling about his background that we'll get into in the next hour"

FUD, commercials, FUD, commercials, FUD,...

[Maverick]

He said he canceled because Ron Paul campaign didn't want Hannity to ask about 3rd party.

Heard that as well.

Then he said something like "Linda's shaking her head...that's not....yeah, I know that's not quite how it was said, but they said 'we've been asked that question enough and we don't have any new information in that regard' and I said 'NO! I'm not playing that game, I won't be dictated to blah blah blah...'"

[Havax]

Let's throw snowballs at Hannity again next time we see him. He's a lost cause.

[sailingaway]

"We'll let Ron Paul back on the program, but there are things troubling about his background that we'll get into in the next hour"

without him here to defend himself.... :rolleyes:

[Karsten]

Nevermind, Sean Hannity just said he cancelled the interview because the Paul campaign didnt want Hannity to ask about 3rd party run

And you believe that shit?

[ShaneEnochs]

Says he's going to talk about the newsletters next.

[JCF]

"When we come back, the controversial past, writings and newsletters of Ron Paul."

Talking with Jeffery Lord about it.

[sailingaway]

Let's throw snowballs at Hannity again next time we see him. He's a lost cause.

no, lets not. We'll just have to go a different route.

[RonPaulCult]

He said "we'll have Ron Paul back on the show"

LIAR

[sailingaway]

"When we come back, the controversial past, writings and newsletters of Ron Paul."

Talking with Jeffery Lord about it.

I can't believe he has slime like Lord and Levin on but not Ron.

[Johncjackson]

It is hard to find logic in internet poison because it usually grows 'operator game style' with people recharacterizing the nonsense they heard from someone else. So they are saying over the 10 years it ran there were a million in subscriber fees? and there are what, 10 questionable sentences over those ten years? So we should find out how many sentences there were in the newsletters over ten years to divide and find out the percentage of fees 'tainted' by bad content? And then find out how much fo those subscriber fees to the independent editor actually went to Ron as a licensing fee for his name, and then apply that percentage to see how much of what went to Ron was tainted? And then decide if he should have known in advance this would happen and as a private citizen not politician should have protected himself?

I find that argument in the 'don't feed the trolls' category.

$1 million was actually the 1 year revenue from the newsletter company, but that figure is slightly exaggerated.

[ItsTime]

why even listen? Just wait for the tube.

[RonPaulCult]

This is an impressive hit piece. Well done propaganda machine. Well done.

[mullenium]

oh gawd.. here we go with the newsletter BS

[dmitchell]

Guess I was wrong. It's going to be the newsletters.

[AlexG]

why even listen? Just wait for the tube.

yea i didnt realize how many commercials radio shows have. no wonder podcasts and youtube are so popular

[Maverick]

I don't doubt that the campaign said something like "C'mon Sean, we've been asked the 3rd party question enough already and it's always the same answer, just let it go." And then Hannity decides to use that as cover for a convenient excuse to cancel the interview, but the real reason he canceled is that he got orders to attack and he doesn't have the balls to attack RP in person.

[sailingaway]

You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer. It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause. But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...

[Cowlesy]

Haha, I even fired up Sirius. Apparently Sean is going on the attack in a few minutes.

Doesn't even have Ron on to respond. So one sided. Love how they roll this out when Ron gains steam.

[Student Of Paulism]

You all had to expect this to happen, it is pretty much the only crap they can dig on him. Soon as he rises in the polls they will find something to smear him with.

[Cowlesy]

You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer. It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause. But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...

Thanks, Mom!

[sailingaway]

I don't doubt that the campaign said something like "C'mon Sean, we've been asked the 3rd party question enough already and it's always the same answer, just let it go." And then Hannity decides to use that as cover for a convenient excuse to cancel the interview, but the real reason he canceled is that he got orders to attack and he doesn't have the balls to attack RP in person.

It isn't that, he knows Ron would have a response and then there would be no time for the story to get ahead of Ron's answer. Real journalists ask for a response from the other side before making allegations.

[unknown]

"When we come back, the controversial past, writings and newsletters of Ron Paul."

Talking with Jeffery Lord about it.

From the American Spectator? The site seems to be pro-Newt.

[svobody]

the racist card is such a liberal media play. ron needs to call it what it is

[Johncjackson]

you know, that is the kind of thing I hear from those who don't want Ron to win under any circumstances. They just keep raising the bar on what Ron 'has to do to put it to rest'. Apologize using their specific phrases, or give the media a goat for sacrifice in who he might guess wrote them, or something. None of that goes to his quality as a presidential candidate.

Actually, a lot of people who want Ron to win just think it should be handled differently and think it hurts his chances to win if he doesn't, and possibly helps others at Paul's expense. How to handle dirt and oppo research is just part of politics and winning isn't some pure pursuit.

[RonPaulCult]

You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer. It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause. But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...

This is good motivation for all of us to keep working hard.

[sailingaway]

$1 million was actually the 1 year revenue from the newsletter company, but that figure is slightly exaggerated.

regardless, that won't have been Ron's take, but it doesn't matter if it was 20 million. It is still a matter of not peering over the shoulders of independent management to see if a volunteer used cheap rhetoric, not a venial sin.

[Jtorsella]

Here's hoping we're overreacting and Hannity is ambiguous.

[kylejack]

3 hours a day, that's all he asks.

[Maverick]

Earlier when interviewing Romney, Hannity said:

"You know, I'm glad that all of these Republican candidates are being vetted so thoroughly, it's really good for the process I think. Though, the only candidate that hasn't been vetted at all is...Ron Paul."

He's been having fun all day dropping in the hints and segueways, and pretending like he's shocked and he's never heard of these newsletters before today.

[Captain America]

It shows that he doesn't understand free market economics. How there is no race laws in a free market society. He is fishing, I do not believe people will take the bait. Hannity should be ashamed of himself. He calls himself a Christian and lies to America. He calls himself a Conservative when the only "conservative" thing is the war policy of death. WWJD, Sean?

[69360]

I turned it on. I don't think it's going to be that bad.

[ord33]

Great...Right at the peak 5:00 drive time when people get off work and are in their cars.

[RonPaulCult]

I turned it on. I don't think it's going to be that bad.

I predict it's going to be FILLED with lies.

[unknown]

Im in the middle of making phone bank calls, now I gotta listen to this jackA$$.

[Liberty74]

Nevermind, Sean Hannity just said he cancelled the interview because the Paul campaign didnt want Hannity to ask about 3rd party run

I know I am going to get slammed for this but if the establishment and the statists derail Paul's campaign with smear tactics, HELL will be paid when Paul does run as an Independent. I'm just saying...

[Tod]

Just teased it on his radio show after interviewing newt. Looks like he'll be doing it in the next 10 minutes.

Here's the live feed if you want to hear the garbage.

http://player.streamtheworld.com/_players/citadel/?sid=5864

EDIT: He keeps teasing this but he hasn't done the segment yet. My best estimate would be around 4:30 ET now (looks like he'll interview Mitt first).

That is one reason I almost NEVER listen to Hannity. If you edited out the time he spends talking about what is coming up next, his show would probably only be about 20 min long.

[JCF]

He's on now with Jeff Lord.

[69360]

He's probably just trolling us all for ratings.

[ShaneEnochs]

Alright guys, here it is.

[Student Of Paulism]

Great...Right at the peak 5:00 drive time when people get off work and are in their cars.

Yep...you gotta admit they are masters when it comes to all the tactics, they think of everything.

[RonPaulCult]

Great...Right at the peak 5:00 drive time when people get off work and are in their cars.

I thought about that too. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[unknown]

I think its going to be diffiuclt to paint Ron Paul as a racist when he was the only Republican candidate who opposed racial profiling...

[Inkblots]

If this time period validation is real, then I would say this is a very poweful argument in favour of Ron Paul. We need to remember this and perhaps have the campaign acknowledge that Ron Paul wasn't even in politics at the time, and was running his personal business SERVING minorities!!!

It's true. From Reason magazine: "During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994".
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

[Cowlesy]

ROFLMAO, Jeffrey Lord is on for the interview???
hilarious!!

[Canderson]

At least hes not saving it for closer to the caucus