Here's how I know you aren't serious about your Newsletter outrage

[rgampell]

OK, like most of you, I don't miss much that's written about Ron Paul. So I can say with near-complete certainty that no one who pretends to care about the newsletters actually cares about the newsletters. And we need to call them on it. Here's how I know the outrage is phony:

1) Ron's whole campaign is based on the premise that we are DOOMED if we don't implement his policies.

If you, Mr. Concerned Voter/Pundit, say that you couldn't possibly vote for someone who published such trash, because either he's a racist or an incompetent manager, then either:

2a) You must be breaking down doors to find someone, ANYONE who can actually implement Ron's ideas, because otherwise we are DOOMED; or

2b) You don't really believe that we'll be doomed, don't really think Ron's ideas are sensible, don't really take him seriously, and therefore DON'T REALLY CARE IF HE'S RACIST OR AN INCOMPETENT MANAGER. You're just pretending to care.

So far, I am still waiting to see 2a.

[braane]

2b) You don't really believe that we'll be doomed, don't really think Ron's ideas are sensible, don't really take him seriously, and therefore DON'T REALLY CARE IF HE'S RACIST OR AN INCOMPETENT MANAGER. You're just pretending to care.



The way I see it is that... those who supported Ron Paul 2 weeks ago still support him today. Those that didn't support him will be harder to get the support of.

So yes, the ones really harping on it and pretending it's the deciding factor never really supported him.

[AlexMerced]

Anyone who's a supporter probably was aware of this issue before it came up, anyone who wasn't a paul support, still isnt'. This shouldn't reduce are number, but will make it harder to increase our numbers.

[eleganz]

Oh its definitely not an important issue to them. They couldn't care less about the newsletters, discrimination, racism and prejudice. Its all about Paul and how many angles they could hit him from.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The real racists are the ones in office who think the people in the Middle East and Africa are lesser people and it doesn't matter if they die.

[rgampell]

I kind of agree that it will be harder to get support, but then I also wonder, does Ron Paul ever really get "soft support"? I would like to see it. Are there really people out there who think we'll be sort-of-doomed without him?

[willwash]

It's the false paradigm machine uniting to defend itself. The stronger Paul gets, the more the false paradigm will be exposed. This is a good thing.

[kylejack]

OK, like most of you, I don't miss much that's written about Ron Paul. So I can say with near-complete certainty that no one who pretends to care about the newsletters actually cares about the newsletters. And we need to call them on it. Here's how I know the outrage is phony:

1) Ron's whole campaign is based on the premise that we are DOOMED if we don't implement his policies.

If you, Mr. Concerned Voter/Pundit, say that you couldn't possibly vote for someone who published such trash, because either he's a racist or an incompetent manager, then either:

2a) You must be breaking down doors to find someone, ANYONE who can actually implement Ron's ideas, because otherwise we are DOOMED; or

2b) You don't really believe that we'll be doomed, don't really think Ron's ideas are sensible, don't really take him seriously, and therefore DON'T REALLY CARE IF HE'S RACIST OR AN INCOMPETENT MANAGER. You're just pretending to care.

So far, I am still waiting to see 2a.
2c You don't find Ron Paul to be credible likely in large part due to aforementioned newsletters, and don't believe he will implement the change we need.

[rgampell]

Your "2c" is my "2a." If Paul is your problem, fine. Then find someone ELSE to implement his policies NOW. Oh, that is unless you don't really think his policies make sense. (Now we're back to "2b.")

Remember, Paul himself would be fine with someone else carrying the torch!

[kylejack]

Your "2c" is my "2a." If Paul is your problem, fine. Then find someone ELSE to implement his policies NOW. Oh, that is unless you don't really think his policies make sense. (Now we're back to "2b.")

Remember, Paul himself would be fine with someone else carrying the torch!
Paul is kind of an anomaly, though. He gets back into Congress with the celebrity backing of Nolan Ryan, and wasn't running then on quite the same campaign as he runs on now, and there's really no way to tell who is the 1 in a million legislator who won't sell out as soon as he gets to Washington.

The other problem is that a candidate that is flawed in some other ways everyone wants to enforce a libertarian fatwa against, e.g. Gary Johnson.

If there were another candidate with the same prominence, voting credentials, and positions as Paul without the newsletters I would definitely be on board, but such a person doesn't exist, so Paul's my best shot.

[rgampell]

Paul is kind of an anomaly, though. He gets back into Congress with the celebrity backing of Nolan Ryan, and wasn't running then on quite the same campaign as he runs on now, and there's really no way to tell who is the 1 in a million legislator who won't sell out as soon as he gets to Washington.

The other problem is that a candidate that is flawed in some other ways everyone wants to enforce a libertarian fatwa against, e.g. Gary Johnson.

If there were another candidate with the same prominence, voting credentials, and positions as Paul without the newsletters I would definitely be on board, but such a person doesn't exist, so Paul's my best shot.

That's an interesting take.

But I'm looking at it sort of the opposite way. I understand the people who (including Ron) think he is not always the best spokesman for his positions. But I DON'T understand the people who say they just can't vote for someone with Ron's particular baggage, but then fail to wring their hands and cry about how we'll never get sound money, we'll never get personal liberty, etc. From what I've read, and it's basically everything, there is no one out there with this position. The "newsletters-disqualify-him" people are clearly also people who don't care about sound money and honest enterprise. Or they'd be looking everywhere for alternative candidates. And they just aren't.

[gerryb]

Yep.. My conversations on other forums have gone exactly that way..

This is a good example of a discussion where the opposition was boxed in and true intentions were displayed;

http://www.pennjerseyforums.com/showthread.php?9298-How-can-anyone-support-Ron-Paul

[NYgs23]

Yes, the OP is totally right. I may use this argument because it obviously is completely false outrage.

[EBounding]

The most serious charge from all this is that Ron Paul was a negligent newsletter publisher while he was delivering babies and providing free medical services to the poor. For shame.

[trey4sports]

I kind of agree that it will be harder to get support, but then I also wonder, does Ron Paul ever really get "soft support"? I would like to see it. Are there really people out there who think we'll be sort-of-doomed without him?


30 strong 70 soft. it might amaze how much support we have. its good thou, we need them too.

[rgampell]

Yep.. My conversations on other forums have gone exactly that way..

This is a good example of a discussion where the opposition was boxed in and true intentions were displayed;

http://www.pennjerseyforums.com/showthread.php?9298-How-can-anyone-support-Ron-Paul

OK, I just read through that thread. Still not seeing it really. It's just the usual too-incompetent-to-be-Commander-in-Chief thing. And, I'm sorry, this just doesn't wash. Better to be doomed, I guess? I keep using that word because that's how Ron Paul sees it. But these guys don't really believe what Ron believes. If they did, they'd keep pounding the table about his policies and saying, We can do this anyway!

But, no, they're just more Insanitarians who pretend that Iran is being run by a suicide bomber. (Has anyone with real power EVER been a suicide bomber? I mean, like, ever in history?)

[CUnknown]

I kind of agree that it will be harder to get support, but then I also wonder, does Ron Paul ever really get "soft support"? I would like to see it. Are there really people out there who think we'll be sort-of-doomed without him?

I disagree that it will be much harder to gain support. Does anyone actually care about this? I know the newsmedia cares, but besides them, I don't see any evidence that anyone cares. I think people know Ron Paul is not racist... so.... to me this is much ado about nothing. We might lose a few votes, but not enough to make any sort of difference.

[kylejack]

Not all people sign on to Paul's entire list of policy positions. Some think the Fed is a necessary evil, but are horrified with America's foreign policy. Others find his foreign policy dangerous but like cutting spending. In fact, the people who say Paul is 'crazy' seem to be equally split between liberals who hate his domestic policy and conservatives who hate his foreign policy...both completely on board with the other half of his policy.

[Dr.3D]

I'm getting the feeling, the media is the one that's going to suffer from this one. The more noise they make, the more people are seeing through their disguise of being unbiased. I certainly hope this media circus is going to backfire and expose them for what they are.

[The Free Hornet]

I'm getting the feeling, the media is the one that's going to suffer from this one. The more noise they make, the more people are seeing through their disguise of being unbiased. I certainly hope this media circus is going to backfire and expose them for what they are.
Ron Paul has shot WAY UP on Google Trends traffic:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul%2C+rick+perry%2C+gingrich%2C+rom ney%2C+huntsman&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=0

Ron's level of dominance is incredible given that his media story count appears to be the same or similar to before. The reporters aren't writing much more, but what they write is driving Ron Paul search traffic. People are not eating what the media is shoveling. The taste of their tripe is off-putting and driving people to seek the truth on their own. If enough people find it, we win. And by "we", I mean "I". I want to live in a free country.

[Voluntary Man]

Anyone who's a supporter probably was aware of this issue before it came up, anyone who wasn't a paul support, still isnt'. This shouldn't reduce are number, but will make it harder to increase our numbers.

That was the strategy, all along, to manufacture a support ceiling, where none previously existed. For that strategy to succeed, it only needs to slow the campaign's roll enough to prevent a (decisive) Iowa victory, or to be seen to have done so. A sledgehammer of a counter-punch is required. Ignoring it is not enough. Remember. The punch doesn't need to come directly from the candidate.

[wowrevolution]

The solution actually is simple. Don't go on the defensive. You need to stay on the offensive. Continue attacking Goldman Sachs, Big Banks, War Mongers, NeoCons, continue on the anti-War path. Continue forcing them to tell why they like Romney or Gingrich or why they want to keep the Oligarchy in power.

Etc etc etc. Wave these attacks to the side and stay on the attack. I want to see every Pauliac spamming every news source with stories of Financial Corruption and Unjust Wars while exposing the corruption in the media as well.

Remember, 90% of the people who watch the news want to kill the newscasters.

[gjdavis60]

The media absolutely doesn't care about the newsletter issue, except as a vehicle to attack Ron. All they want to do is read the controversial quotes on camera and associate them with Ron. If they were even remotely interested in who wrote them, someone aside from a few internet reporters/bloggers, would have named the people who were known to have worked with the newsletter. We know who they were. Have you heard one reporter on television name anyone who was known to have worked for the newsletter? They would have reported on the well-known paleolibertarian movement and its strategy to reach out to the militia movement in an effort to recruit potential supporters. They would at least ask, "Dr. Paul, did Lew Rockwell write those inflammatory statements?"

There is no desire whatsoever on the part of the media to get to the bottom of this, because if they did it might go away. No, they just want to tag Paul with the epithet "racist" and they will run with this as long as they can. The problem is, if the writers were named, the media would just find another way to spin it, continue to read the quotes on camera and continue to imply some character flaw or wrongdoing. Their objective could not be clearer.

The campaign's response to this seems somewhat risky, but I'm not sure there's anything they could do to avoid what is happening.

[Jamesiv1]

In an earlier thread, I too felt like it should be addressed.

But now I'm liking the campaign's approach, which so far seems to be ignore it - because it is not actually doing any damage.

If it sticks past one or two news cycles then consider switching to Plan B which *might* be to address it.

One suggestion that could be implemented right now is to expound on Ron's track record on this issue somewhere on the official website - without mentioning the newsletters, and without using the R word. Put it under "Civil Rights" or "Equal Opportunity". That would give supporters something concrete to use as a rebuttal.

Just looked - there is a tidy spot to place it under the "the ISSUES" dropdown menu - 4th line down, "Right to Work", "Homeschooling", "Civil Rights"

This would give Ron a simple, easy answer: "Geeez.. those stupid newsletters again. I should have paid closer attention but like I have told you for 20 years, I didn't write them and I totally disavow them. If you want to know my position on Civil Rights, just take a look at my website. (inject a few bullet points if needed)"

Actions speak louder than words.

[Travlyr]

Not all people sign on to Paul's entire list of policy positions. Some think the Fed is a necessary evil, but are horrified with America's foreign policy. Others find his foreign policy dangerous but like cutting spending. In fact, the people who say Paul is 'crazy' seem to be equally split between liberals who hate his domestic policy and conservatives who hate his foreign policy...both completely on board with the other half of his policy.
All honest people will sign on to Paul's entire list of policy positions because Ron Paul brings honesty and truth to the table.

Who wants to keep the dishonest money system going? - The Federal Reserve System of "elastic" money is theft plain and simple (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3815).
Who wants to keep the wars going? - "War Is A Racket (http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket)" that enriches warmongers, kills innocent people, and causes destructive chaos.
Who doesn't want Ron Paul's "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)" - "Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship"?


Answer: Two groups,

Dishonest warmongering thieves.
Honest people who have been duped into believing the lies told by the dishonest people.

The only people we can convert are honest people who have been duped by media and the schooling system. Most people are honest. Honest people want an honest money system, honest trade, and peace. That is what Ron Paul brings. When we beat the establishment and get the truth told, Ron Paul wins by a landslide.