How and when should Rand deal with the CRA issue ?

[J_White]

Call me pessimistic, but I think that issue will come back to bite Rand when things get hot.
Remember how just 1-2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the only thing all channels were saying about Ron Paul was the newsletters ?

I think Rand is doing quite well now, getting good media coverage, but when the time comes, whoever is the establishment's chosen one - be it Rubio or Ryan or Jeb Bush or any other rising star, Rand will be attacked and his words will be twisted.

What can be done to prepare for this ?
I hope Rand is thinking about this.

[fearthereaperx]

Yeah, ive been asking myself that same question ever since that interview. It happened to his dad in back to back elections and it'll happen to him too as well. And Wolf Blitzer will be the first to bring it up. They gave him the red carpet yesterday, they'll swipe it right underneath him at the appropriate time.

As far as preparation, I would say not to spend too much time defending yourself and talking about property right nuances, but that has already proven to be difficult, because no matter what you do or what you say, it's going to be spun against you and people will vote strictly on emotion.

[eleganz]

It'll happen when it happens, Rand will answer it in a level headed way and nobody who actually cares will bother with his personal explanation.

Don't know why we bother with this stuff. I rather talk about when Rand is going to announce and where he is going to announce his presidential candidacy for 2016. :rolleyes:

[KEEF]

Don't know why we bother with this stuff. I rather talk about when Rand is going to announce and where he is going to announce his presidential candidacy for 2016. :rolleyes:

Because the media will try to link it with his Dad's newsletters and the left will spin it as "we can't trust those Pauls with race" and the right will spin it as "yeah he is a good guy, but you see how those newsletters hurt his Dad in 08 and 12, his statements made about CRA will hurt us with getting the minority vote BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... this is why we need Rubio... BLAH, BLAH"

You all know how the media is; just when the sheep start to see that big pile of carrots in the distance, the media goes and hangs a disgusting knotty carrot to the immediate left and right as a divisive distraction. Since that knotty carrot is much easier to get to, the sheep keeps following it.

At the same time though, if Rand does bring it up while he is getting all of this good press, then there goes the good press. I would just keep doing what he is doing and convert as many of the war drum beating, limbaugh/hannity listening right to the fact that the Liberty Movement is going to inevitably have to be the new GOP or the GOP will continue to lose.

[itshappening]

POLITICO have got an article "can Rand win?" and they mention this. Bear in mind POLITICO is the establishment organ and can set the official narrative and their "ruling" is that he dealt with it in 2010 and it didn't do any lasting damage.

-
He appears to have fewer skeletons than his father

Ron Paul faced attacks from the right over racist statements decades earlier in newsletters that bore his name, his criticism of Ronald Reagan in the ’80s and suggesting that the CIA under President George H.W. Bush was involved in drug trafficking.

Barring a surprise, opponents have nowhere near the volume of material on Rand Paul, a benefit of spending most of his adult life on the periphery of politics. He did come under fire during his 2010 campaign for questioning the constitutionality of a section of the Civil Right Act of 1964. And there was also the “Aqua Buddha” incident, in which an anonymous woman accused Paul and a friend of blindfolding her in a college stunt.

But neither did lasting damage to Paul. Indeed, Paul denied the “Aqua Buddha” claim, and an ad by his opponent invoking it ended up backfiring.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/5-reasons-why-you-should-take-rand-paul-seriously-89105_Page2.html#ixzz2O5AzwjL9
-

I think they will bring it up eventually but it'll look off-topic, out of date and irrelevant if they start hammering him particularly if establishment organs like POLITICO consider it over with.

[jtstellar]

all he has to say is he phrased it wrongly and he apologizes but 'there's a greater point i was trying to make' the usual rand rhetoric and he'll be fine.. some people don't like his style of street smart but that's also part of his advantage over ron when it comes to politics to the stupid mass.. i'm interested in what happened in rand's past because usually you don't get those levels of street smart without doing some really stupid stuff you regret later on

and this immigration reform and starting conference meetings with latino groups and all might already be a part of that in adding street cred for when those questions come up

[whoisjohngalt]

It'll happen when it happens, Rand will answer it in a level headed way and nobody who actually cares will bother with his personal explanation.

Don't know why we bother with this stuff. I rather talk about when Rand is going to announce and where he is going to announce his presidential candidacy for 2016. :rolleyes:

On Hannity right after the 2014 elections in November with the candlestick.

Rand will say something like, "It's ridiculous to paint me as racist. I merely want to allow the racists or bigots to self identify as such so that I can withhold my business and encourage others to do so. Why would we want a law that forces these types to hide their true colors and collect profits from those they hate?"

[dannno]

He should definitely wait until they bring it up at the most inopportune time possible.

/sarc

Honestly I don't know, that's one of those issues that has such widespread misunderstanding it makes it pretty difficult to combat. But if we can get people behind him strongly enough on other issues they may be able to see the other side or at least see past it...

[whoisjohngalt]

Ron Paul faced attacks from the right over racist statements decades earlier in newsletters that bore his name, his criticism of Ronald Reagan in the ’80s and suggesting that the CIA under President George H.W. Bush was involved in drug trafficking.

I don't remember Ron coming under fire for stating that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. They were still are. It's an open secret that no one wants to talk about.

[itshappening]

I don't remember Ron coming under fire for stating that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. They were still are. It's an open secret that no one wants to talk about.

The best thing is he ran on it in 1988 and used it against Bush. Maybe the reporter has a long memory?

[dannno]

I don't remember Ron coming under fire for stating that the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. They were still are. It's an open secret that no one wants to talk about.

Ya I can see individual Republicans citing and objecting to it, but I don't see mainstream media bringing up THAT topic..ever

[TonySutton]

On Hannity right after the 2014 elections in November with the candlestick.

Rand will say something like, "It's ridiculous to paint me as racist. I merely want to allow the racists or bigots to self identify as such so that I can withhold my business and encourage others to do so. Why would we want a law that forces these types to hide their true colors and collect profits from those they hate?"

^^ This is exactly what I say and then add "Why would you unknowingly want to support a racist business owner?" The question really throws people off balance and puts them on the defensive!

[T.hill]

Rand has already started to deal with this issue, he was on CNN discussing it with a panel of people during Ron's 2012 campaign. He doesn't even drive the libertarian point completely home and he still plays it perfectly. Rand has a non-confrontational nature, but when he has to he can be aggressive to get his point across. There's many different ways he can handle this issue.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TyOGCPPs_Pk

[eleganz]

Because the media will try to link it with his Dad's newsletters and the left will spin it as "we can't trust those Pauls with race" and the right will spin it as "yeah he is a good guy, but you see how those newsletters hurt his Dad in 08 and 12, his statements made about CRA will hurt us with getting the minority vote BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... this is why we need Rubio... BLAH, BLAH"

You all know how the media is; just when the sheep start to see that big pile of carrots in the distance, the media goes and hangs a disgusting knotty carrot to the immediate left and right as a divisive distraction. Since that knotty carrot is much easier to get to, the sheep keeps following it.

At the same time though, if Rand does bring it up while he is getting all of this good press, then there goes the good press. I would just keep doing what he is doing and convert as many of the war drum beating, limbaugh/hannity listening right to the fact that the Liberty Movement is going to inevitably have to be the new GOP or the GOP will continue to lose.

Discussing and speculating on this stuff on RPF is going to do absolutely nothing for Rand's response on the media and how the media and their audiences reacts.


Unless somebody comes up with a brilliant viral video/ad-campaign that paints Rand as a great guy, (that can never be the guy the left paints him as) which I'm sure he is.

[J_White]

POLITICO have got an article "can Rand win?" and they mention this. Bear in mind POLITICO is the establishment organ and can set the official narrative and their "ruling" is that he dealt with it in 2010 and it didn't do any lasting damage.

-
He appears to have fewer skeletons than his father

Ron Paul faced attacks from the right over racist statements decades earlier in newsletters that bore his name, his criticism of Ronald Reagan in the ’80s and suggesting that the CIA under President George H.W. Bush was involved in drug trafficking.

Barring a surprise, opponents have nowhere near the volume of material on Rand Paul, a benefit of spending most of his adult life on the periphery of politics. He did come under fire during his 2010 campaign for questioning the constitutionality of a section of the Civil Right Act of 1964. And there was also the “Aqua Buddha” incident, in which an anonymous woman accused Paul and a friend of blindfolding her in a college stunt.

But neither did lasting damage to Paul. Indeed, Paul denied the “Aqua Buddha” claim, and an ad by his opponent invoking it ended up backfiring.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/5-reasons-why-you-should-take-rand-paul-seriously-89105_Page2.html#ixzz2O5AzwjL9
-

I think they will bring it up eventually but it'll look off-topic, out of date and irrelevant if they start hammering him particularly if establishment organs like POLITICO consider it over with.

yep, Aqua Buddha and CRA will be used against him. I just hope he had made enough inroads by then , so people are not that affected by those accusations.

[J_White]

On Hannity right after the 2014 elections in November with the candlestick.

Rand will say something like, "It's ridiculous to paint me as racist. I merely want to allow the racists or bigots to self identify as such so that I can withhold my business and encourage others to do so. Why would we want a law that forces these types to hide their true colors and collect profits from those they hate?"

that in fact is a very good way to put it !! put people on the defensive !

[MaxPower]

Call me pessimistic, but I think that issue will come back to bite Rand when things get hot.
Remember how just 1-2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses, the only thing all channels were saying about Ron Paul was the newsletters ?

I think Rand is doing quite well now, getting good media coverage, but when the time comes, whoever is the establishment's chosen one - be it Rubio or Ryan or Jeb Bush or any other rising star, Rand will be attacked and his words will be twisted.

What can be done to prepare for this ?
I hope Rand is thinking about this.
Very true-- the Civil Rights Act issue will never go away for so long as Rand remains in electoral politics. I think there are a lot of left liberals out there who might, in other circumstances, have liked Rand, but who despise him to this day because they got their first impression of him as the man who questioned part of the politically-sacred Civil Rights Act.

Rand's response during the campaign was to backpedal and change his position; the first couple times he was asked about the "Would-you-have-voted-for-the-Civil-Rights-Act" hypothetical, he didn't give a straight answer and implied that he would have argued against the public accommodations title, but after the Maddow interview ignited a tidal wave of media abuse, he went on the weekend talk shows and announced that he would have voted in favor and that the severity of historical racism justified an exception to the pro-free-enterprise and federalist positions he espouses. It was dishonest, but it was probably electorally-helpful damage control. When Conway and others brought up the Civil Rights Act later in the campaign, Rand refused to discuss it in any depth and maintained that he supported it. I expect he will do the same thing if (when) the attack is brought against him again.