View Full Version : Why is the campaign silent on GOP rivals' race-relations ?
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:01 PM
John Gibson on Fox news Radio has been slamming Ron Paul for a whole hour and most of it has been using the newsletter stuff.
Ron Paul's campaign (or PAC or whatever) can no longer ignore the RACIAL attacks and be defensive only. It's time to deliver offensive answers to the newsletter questions (in ads, interviews etc). He needs to ATTACK his opponents on specifically RACE relations. From now onwards Ron Paul must (this is no longer optional) must answer every newsletter question by mentioning things like:
Why the media is not confronting Newt Gingrich for calling Spanish = ghetto?
Note: the issue is NOT whether the GOP candidates have done the right thing or not but whether the MEDIA has been playing fair (as they always pretend to be when asking Ron about the newsletters).
The aim here is not just to answer the question but to communicate to the public PAST the interviewer/accuser. Cuz the interviewer is not raising the question in order for Ron to clarify the matter but in order to smear. And so RP2012 must make the media know beforehand what to expect when they ask him the newsletter matter (in order that every-time the newsletter question is raised, that would predictably trigger Gingrich's "Spanish=ghetto" quip).
Brian4Liberty
12-21-2011, 01:08 PM
Because resorting to name calling doesn't appeal to people that focus on important policy issues?
ConsideringRonPaul
12-21-2011, 01:09 PM
All the "race relations" stuff is just propaganda and distracting from the campaign. The claims are baseless and Paul's been doing the right thing by essentially ignoring and brushing them aside.
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:11 PM
Because resorting to name calling doesn't appeal to people that focus on important policy issues?What are you talking about?
Who's asking for namecalling? I certainly am not. I have made it explicitly clear that the issue is why the media is discriminating on race issues regarding the various GOP candidates. That's it! That's the issue here.
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:15 PM
All the "race relations" stuff is just propaganda and distracting from the campaign. The claims are baseless and Paul's been doing the right thing by essentially ignoring and brushing them aside.We all agree that he's doing the right thing AND that the media is decidedly NOT doing the right thing.
THAT in and of itself is the issue here.
THAT is something that needs to be addressed (read: offensively dealt with)
sailingaway
12-21-2011, 01:17 PM
Heck, Gingrich himself ON CAMERA called Spanish the 'language of the ghetto', very recently, which is about as bad as anything in the newsletters Ron never wrote, to begin with.
But nevermind, there are different rules with Ron, because it is all they have.
I have no idea what you are talking about with the blacks/Mormanism thing but since it seems to demonize an entire religion, I am going to delete it.
ronpaulhawaii
12-21-2011, 01:18 PM
Drawing attention to negatives draws attention to negatives
Defending against lies makes the candidate look defensive
Politics 101 - Ignore bad press unless it cannot be ignored
Such decisions are best left to Ron and his professional team
Publicani
12-21-2011, 01:21 PM
We all agree that he's doing the right thing AND that the media is decidedly NOT doing the right thing.
THAT in and of itself is the issue here.
THAT is something that needs to be addressed (read: offensively dealt with)
Calling other candidate racists is not convincing, though. Because then the campaign communicates: "Yes, we are racists, but so are they."
sailingaway
12-21-2011, 01:26 PM
Calling other candidate racists is not convincing, though. Because then the campaign communicates: "Yes, we are racists, but so are they."
lol! truth, that. It is the coverage that is biased, but Ron really can't be the one to point it out. The important things are that he didn't write or approve them, and that they were 20 years ago when he wasn't in office, and were handled by independent management of the newsletters. Meanwhile HE was giving free and discounted medical care to poor women regardless of race, in his medical practice, because he wouldn't take medicare or medicaid yet wouldn't turn anyone away because they couldn't pay.
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:27 PM
Calling other candidate racists is not convincing, though. Because then the campaign communicates: "Yes, we are racists, but so are they."No sure how you came to that conclusion since I have made it painstakingly clear that the issue here is NOT whether RP2012 or anyone thinks the GOP rivals have done or are racists or not, but just whether the media is right to be selectively outraged on race matters.
That is a fully legitimate issue.
ConsideringRonPaul
12-21-2011, 01:30 PM
No sure how you came to that conclusion since I have made it painstakingly clear that the issue here is NOT whether RP2012 or anyone thinks the GOP rivals have done or are racists or not, but just whether the media is right to be selectively outraged on race matters.
That is a fully legitimate issue.
The media always has and always will be biased, and for grassroots figures like Paul, its at its worst. Are they "right" to be selectively outraged? I don't think so. But, i mean, what are we gonna do about it?
shrugged0106
12-21-2011, 01:37 PM
Remember Romneys "Tar Baby" comment he later apologized for?
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:39 PM
^ Exactemundo!
Remember the issue here is not Romney but the fact that the media has given Romney a pass on the tar-baby issue in this 2012 campaign!
You shrugged0106 are getting my point.
ConsideringRonPaul
12-21-2011, 01:41 PM
^ Exactemundo!
Remember the issue here is not Romney but the fact that the media has given Romney a pass on the tar-baby issue in this 2012 campaign!
You shrugged0106 are getting my point.
It's not that I don;t get your point; I just realized media bias long ago and nothing that's going on now is surprising me.
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:42 PM
Are they "right" to be selectively outraged?Is the pope catholic?
I don't think so. But, i mean, what are we gonna do about it?The answer is not defense but offense (for examples of that go back and read the OP)
shrugged0106
12-21-2011, 01:45 PM
Personally, I dont think the campaign can do much at this point on it, but we, as supporters sure can. Maybe twitterbomb and FB the worst comments, with the tag "Andyouthinkronpualisracist?" or something in the tweet with a link to the quotes. "Drudge" them up, send quotes to media, etc
I dont know, just a thought.
Cowlesy
12-21-2011, 01:46 PM
Drawing attention to negatives draws attention to negatives
Defending against lies makes the candidate look defensive
Politics 101 - Ignore bad press unless it cannot be ignored
Such decisions are best left to Ron and his professional team
Quoted for truth.
sailingaway
12-21-2011, 01:46 PM
Personally, I dont think the campaign can do much at this point on it, but we, as supporters sure can. Maybe twitterbomb and FB the worst comments, with the tag "Andyouthinkronpualisracist?" or something in the tweet with a link to the quotes. "Drudge" them up, send quotes to media, etc
I dont know, just a thought.
No, we shouldn't call more attention to them. If others raise them, explain who Ron is, and that that wasn't him.
RonPaulMall
12-21-2011, 01:47 PM
No sure how you came to that conclusion since I have made it painstakingly clear that the issue here is NOT whether RP2012 or anyone thinks the GOP rivals have done or are racists or not, but just whether the media is right to be selectively outraged on race matters.
That is a fully legitimate issue.
The media is not "right" on almost every single issue going right down the line. Everybody here knows that. But Ron Paul playing the race game would be stupid and counterproductive. His argument needs to be he's the only true Conservative and totally focused on cutting government while the other candidates and the media are focused on irrelevancies like newsletters. The GOP base doesn't care about newsletters. If he plays it right, the media attacking him on this will backfire. If he starts playing race cards himself though, he'll lose all sympathy and be playing right in to the MSM's hands.
ConsideringRonPaul
12-21-2011, 01:48 PM
The media is not "right" on almost every single issue going right down the line. Everybody here knows that. But Ron Paul playing the race game would be stupid and counterproductive. His argument needs to be he's the only true Conservative and totally focused on cutting government while the other candidates and the media are focused on irrelevancies like newsletters. The GOP base doesn't care about newsletters. If he plays it right, the media attacking him on this will backfire. If he starts playing race cards himself though, he'll lose all sympathy and be playing right in to the MSM's hands.
^This
shrugged0106
12-21-2011, 01:48 PM
No, we shouldn't call more attention to them. If others raise them, explain who Ron is, and that that wasn't him.
You misunderstand me I think. I mean to call attention to the comments of the other candidates
tempest
12-21-2011, 01:56 PM
The media is not "right" on almost every single issue going right down the line. Everybody here knows that. But Ron Paul playing the race game would be stupid and counterproductive. His argument needs to be he's the only true Conservative and totally focused on cutting government while the other candidates and the media are focused on irrelevancies like newsletters. The GOP base doesn't care about newsletters. If he plays it right, the media attacking him on this will backfire. If he starts playing race cards himself though, he'll lose all sympathy and be playing right in to the MSM's hands.In what way is he playing right into the MSM's hands? They actually DON'T want to raise racial issues regarding Romney & Gingrich and the others.
All I'm asking is that Ron RESPONDS to specifically cheapshot questions regarding the newsletters by "answering the question with a question" (as in "so you say you are fair? Well then, have you asked what Grinch thinks of the Spanish language?... Have you asked Romney..........?")
And Ron needs to repeat that ad nauseum to the point of everyone already anticipating it when asked the same question next time.
NoPants
12-21-2011, 02:13 PM
Drawing attention to negatives draws attention to negatives
Defending against lies makes the candidate look defensive
Politics 101 - Ignore bad press unless it cannot be ignored
Such decisions are best left to Ron and his professional team
That's the answer to your question.
I know it's frustrating to listen as the media does attack after attack and it may be hard to believe but people really are beginning to see through them. In 2007/08 I didn't believe people when they said "The media is exposing themselves" and back then it may not have been true but a lot has changed since then and more people are truly aware now that what they hear on the radio, tv, etc. is often full of lies and propaganda. The campaign is handling this the right way and I think it is only increasing Dr. Paul's support.
Brian4Liberty
12-21-2011, 02:18 PM
What are you talking about?
Who's asking for namecalling? I certainly am not. I have made it explicitly clear that the issue is why the media is discriminating on race issues regarding the various GOP candidates. That's it! That's the issue here.
I am saying that Ron Paul's campaign is not going to stoop to that level. Of course the media attacks are not fair. They never are. They intentionally ignore other things that could be a contrived "scandal" for their favorite candidates, especially in Newt Gingrich's case. Was Howard Dean screaming "yehaaa" a real issue? They believe that if they can repeatedly smear someone with enough scorn or contempt in their presentation, it will stick with those who are not following closely.
Here's the fact when it comes to these charges of racism:
The people actually making these accusations don't believe it. But they are slinging mud against someone who they disagree with on issues, and they have lost the arguments on the issues. They have no where else to go but to resort to the lowest, emotional, exaggerated smear tactics that can come up with. They don't believe these accusations themselves! They are just hoping that they can fool people, and then they can laugh about it afterwards.
refuge
12-21-2011, 02:26 PM
lol! truth, that. It is the coverage that is biased, but Ron really can't be the one to point it out. The important things are that he didn't write or approve them, and that they were 20 years ago when he wasn't in office, and were handled by independent management of the newsletters. Meanwhile HE was giving free and discounted medical care to poor women regardless of race, in his medical practice, because he wouldn't take medicare or medicaid yet wouldn't turn anyone away because they couldn't pay.
This!
People know he's a doctor, but I think just what he did as a doctor (besides delivering babies) should be pushed. Maybe not by Ron, but by somebody!
tempest
12-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Drawing attention to negatives draws attention to negatives
Defending against lies makes the candidate look defensive
Politics 101 - Ignore bad press unless it cannot be ignored Agreed with all of those statements.
But aren't we there now?
tempest
12-21-2011, 02:34 PM
lol! truth, that. It is the coverage that is biased, but Ron really can't be the one to point it out. The important things are that he didn't write or approve them, and that they were 20 years ago when he wasn't in office, and were handled by independent management of the newsletters. Meanwhile HE was giving free and discounted medical care to poor women regardless of race, in his medical practice, because he wouldn't take medicare or medicaid yet wouldn't turn anyone away because they couldn't pay.Others on the other hand, are free to point that out and do "God's work" right? :p
jmdrake
12-21-2011, 02:34 PM
Drawing attention to negatives draws attention to negatives
Defending against lies makes the candidate look defensive
Politics 101 - Ignore bad press unless it cannot be ignored
Such decisions are best left to Ron and his professional team
Yep. We're winning right now. This tactic would just drag us down. If this issue comes up Ron just needs to hammer home that he's the president that wants to end the war on black people drugs and stop sending black and white people from here halfway around the world to kill and be killed by brown people for no apparent reason.
American Idol
12-21-2011, 02:52 PM
Blacks weren't even ALLOWED in the Mormon church until like 1976. Not bashing Mormons at all, just sayin'...
NoPants
12-21-2011, 02:54 PM
Agreed with all of those statements.
But aren't were there now?
In my opinion, no. Unless it starts to hurt the polling numbers there is absolutely no reason to acknowledge it. When asked directly on these issues he answers. That's as far as it needs to go. Anything beyond that at this stage would look defensive and could do more damage than good.
tempest
12-21-2011, 02:58 PM
^^ I don't regard that as bashing either, American Idol (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?340744-Why-is-the-campaign-silent-on-GOP-rivals-race-relations&p=3887334&viewfull=1#post3887334).
The subject matter here is not a religion NOR a candidate but a specifically anti-Ron-Paul establishment-media (that needs to be called out specifically for giving others a free pass on this racism issue).
American Idol
12-21-2011, 03:09 PM
^^ I don't regard that as bashing either, American Idol (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?340744-Why-is-the-campaign-silent-on-GOP-rivals-race-relations&p=3887334&viewfull=1#post3887334).
The subject matter here is not a religion NOR a candidate but a specifically anti-Ron-Paul establishment-media (that needs to be called out specifically for giving others a free pass on this racism issue).
The absurdity of the Romney media shills attacking Ron Paul for "racism" is bold and stunning.
Occam's Banana
12-21-2011, 03:33 PM
Words cannot express the staggering degree of fail in this thread subject - so I won't even try.
Publicani
12-21-2011, 03:38 PM
Ron has the tendency of honestly answering directly the question he is asked. That's why he sounds more sincere and less political than other candidates. Occasionally it presents a problem when the REAL question is slightly different from the ASKED question.
The newsletters are perfect examples. He's saying: "I didn't write them." And "I do a lot for minorities." He's not answering a REAL question which is: "Are you responsible for what was written in these newsletters?" The issue will not go away until he'd say: "Yes, I am responsible." He can (and should) add as much as he wants afterwords - I didn't write them, I had another full job at the time, the newsletter had to be written in a rush, check my record." I would have added (but he wouldn't) that most of the quotes are not really racist, but just politically incorrect. The main thing is to say "Yes, I am responsible, sorry."
He makes a similar mistakes on foreign policy as well. When asked about wars he often says "... and we don't have money." Who cares? This was not the question. If it's a question of survival, who cares about money? Doesn't he understand that?
Another example. A STATED question: "If Israel is attacked..." His answer: "Israel can defend herself. Netanyahu said we don't need American soldiers." The REAL question is: "What's your actions when one of our friends is under imminent attack? Like Canada? England? Are there circumstances when you decide to get involved?"
I am his long time supporter, and I read probably everything he ever said, but I don't know his answer. It's fine for me if his answer is "No, if there's no direct threat, I will not use US military force." I suspect though, that his answer is more nuanced, and I'd like to know that. And believe me, millions of other people that we non-nonchalantly call neocons, want to know his answer to that as well. After all the debates he still never addressed the REAL question.
There are other examples as well. On immigration, for example. But I think my point is clear - Ron should move his answers to the next level of clarity. I have no doubt that it'll help him enormously.
tempest
12-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Words cannot express the staggering degree of fail in this thread subject - so I won't even try. Someone has certainly failed. Hence incapacitated to even try.
Others on the other hand have made it clear that Ron Paul indeed needs to be on the offensive against the 4th estate (IMO in the exact manner that he has been against Gingrich in Iowa, he should target the media goons for THEIR serial hypocrisy.
D.A.S.
12-21-2011, 03:46 PM
I've been debating the same question that user "tempest" expressed in the original post, and I've been a little bit antsy on this issue as well.
I've come to the conclusion that the Campaign has been handling its PR *very* well so far, and their timing has been dead on so far, so there's ample reason to believe that they are well-aware of this recent newsletter thing, that they have a response ready if needed, and that they've been watching the polls and consulting about this and so far decided the time isn't right to come out with any response.
In his interview yesterday with John King of CNN, Ron touched on this issue:
Everybody knows I didn't write them, everybody knows it isn't my nature, everybody knows that is not my position. It's 20-some years ago, and that's the best they can do, and they have to discredit me on that rather than talking about the Federal Reserve and the Foreign Policy and the Welfare and the Debt? No, it's something... I was a publisher of a letter, and they appeared - they shouldn't have appeared. But, you know, it was just not me that wrote them, and I have disavowed them. So, you'd think, you know, after 20-some years... But nobody's gonna believe that stuff! People who know me know it can't possibly be true.
American Idol
12-21-2011, 03:59 PM
The campaign doesn't even necessarily need to bring this up. However, the GOP Establishment shills should quietly be put on notice of the potential Mutally Assured Destruction scenerio that could play out if they continue with the low blows on this non-issue...
tempest
12-21-2011, 04:14 PM
In my opinion, no.Not even after the Gloria Borger "ambush" on CNN just minutes ago?
tempest
12-21-2011, 04:48 PM
It's becoming urgent now to get on the offensive.
Gloria Borger on CNN was literally howling "but it's legitimate... it's legitimate, Mr Paul... it's legitimate...!"
Now that's what I'm talking about. That was one IDEAL moment for Dr Paul to exactly go offense on CNN and tell Gloria that what she was doing was actually double-standard & hypocritical and therefore NOT legitimate "since you are singling me out and letting Grinch and Willard off the hook on this racial issue".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.