Is there any Dirt on Ron Paul?

[JoeySweets]

I'm posting this here because this is the most active forum and I don't really see the reason for posting it someplace where there are like 3 viewers.

Anyways, once Ron Paul establishs himself as one of the main Canidates and he shows he has a real chance of winning, what will the "dirt" that will be dragged up about him.

Or is there even any dirt,

I know Gulianni has that mistress thing and now we see Huckabee let a rapist go Free to murder other people,

Does Ron Paul have any Dirt on him " I know I personally disagree about his stance as far as legalizing drugs, and that could be brought up, even though I'm not sure if Ron Paul will imediatly legalize cocaine or something, but is there anything that the media or the other canidates could run with to try an discredit him? Other than the Drug thing

[Green Mountain Boy]

I heard he had a cookie problem.

[voytechs]

This is going to be a short thread. Don't hold your breath.

[OKRonPaul]

I doubt they'll find any true dirt. It's going to be more about FUD from condensing his ideas into one sentence quips that sound extreme and scary.


(FUD = Fear, Uncertaintly and Doubt fyi )

[ItsTime]

his dirt will be the grassroots. We have been his dirt for a long time. If they could have really attacked him by now they would have.

its hard to attack someone McCain called one of the most honest men in Congress.

[fortilite]

He's not a socialist and he doesn't support war. If you're a neocon or a democrat, that's dirt.

[FreedomLover]

As far as dirt goes, the only things I have seen are some ron paul survival reports that have some rather controversial quotes on race, but he said he didn't write them so i don't know how far that will go.

Besides that, I don't think there is any dirt at all. I think the closest you could get would be some of the supporters (some of you scare the crap out of me). But the man himself is remarkably authentic and sincere.

[Tina]

his dirt will be the grassroots. We have been his dirt for a long time. If they could have really attacked him by now they would have.

its hard to attack someone McCain called one of the most honest men in Congress.

LOL! Dirt that every other candidate would love to have.

[JMann]

I'm posting this here because this is the most active forum and I don't really see the reason for posting it someplace where there are like 3 viewers.

Anyways, once Ron Paul establishs himself as one of the main Canidates and he shows he has a real chance of winning, what will the "dirt" that will be dragged up about him.

Or is there even any dirt,

I know Gulianni has that mistress thing and now we see Huckabee let a rapist go Free to murder other people,

Does Ron Paul have any Dirt on him " I know I personally disagree about his stance as far as legalizing drugs, and that could be brought up, even though I'm not sure if Ron Paul will imediatly legalize cocaine or something, but is there anything that the media or the other canidates could run with to try an discredit him? Other than the Drug thing

The vast majority of drugs are legal and regulated. There are so many legal drugs they actually have places called 'drug stores'.

[yankee_blue]

I heard that he has an addiction to excercise.

[quickmike]

I heard he had a cookie problem.

Not only that...............

Those cookies have CHOCOLATE in them!!

Lets just hope this never gets out. It will kill us.

[evadmurd]

his dirt will be the grassroots. We have been his dirt for a long time. If they could have really attacked him by now they would have.

LOL. That is probably so true!

[NerveShocker]

The dirt might sound something like this.. ;)

"The blimps not that big..."

"It's only 10 million..."

"So what if he broke his own record?"

[emilysdad]

He was an outstanding baseball player in his youth, I bet he got real dirty then.

[Mandrik]

"So what if he broke his own record?"

That's my favorite. :D

[Maverick]

I don't really think there is any dirt on him. And I think that's why a lot of us have found him to be such an appealing candidate. His record has been scoured and scrutinized god knows how many times, and nobody has managed to pull up anything of any real significance.

The only "dirt" on Dr. Paul would be his supporters, I guess. With groups like stormfront or whatever, and the Bunny Ranch owner endorsing him, some people want to made it look bad for his campaign. But these people have every right to donate to whoever they want and it's not like Dr. Paul solicited the donations from any of them anyway, so it's a pretty weak argument overall. And besides, the media has already tried to slam RP for this, and it hasn't stuck.

[integrity]

his shoe was untied for a moment once.... and a fly landed on him once.

thats all I have seen. oh- he has 2 first names, which some think is a sign of untrustworthiness.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I wouldn't consider the drug thing as dirt. That's just a philosophical or policy issue. Dirt is more like personal problems or scandal.

The worst they've come up with so far is whacky or racist supporters and the racist comments printed in his newsletter. Trust me, those will be hammered on by his GOP rivals when he starts rising in the polls and the Dems will go ape-shit over them if he gets the nomination.

They could try calling him a hypocrit about the earmarks votes but that would really be reaching and easily dismissed.

[ashlux]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul:


1996 campaign controversy

In 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a tougher battle than he had faced in the 1970s. Since the Republicans had taken over both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of tax cuts, closing agencies, and curbing the UN would have more influence,[50] but he quickly concluded "there was no sincere effort" toward his goals.[15] The Republican National Committee focused instead on encouraging Democrats to switch parties, as Paul's primary opponent, incumbent Greg Laughlin, had done in 1995. The party threw its full weight behind Laughlin, including support from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the National Rifle Association. Paul responded by running newspaper ads quoting Gingrich's harsh criticisms of Laughlin's Democratic voting record 14 months earlier.[38] Paul won the primary with support from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan (who served as honorary campaign chair and made ad appearances) and tax activist Steve Forbes.[10][33]

Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, lost in a close margin, despite assistance from the AFL-CIO. Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris two-to-one, giving the third-highest amount of individual contributions received by any House member (behind Gingrich and Bob Dornan).[51] It became the third time Paul had been elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.[10]

Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[52][53] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[54][55] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[56][57]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[58] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[33] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[10]

[Nanerbeet]

He was trying to show how biased DC is towards blacks by saying how if you go by the statistics of the rediculously biased DC judicial system, it implies 95% of the blacks are criminals. A thinking person can see how absurd it would be if 95% of the blacks are criminals and therefor the statistics themselves are the proof that the system is slanted. Taken out of context, though, and it sounds like he's calling all black people in DC criminals. I don't have the exact quote but its all over the place, maybe someone can find it.

[AstroSamurai]

There's this, this could devastate his whole campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heaVKmBZp0s

[Adamsa]

He has an addiction to cookies, his muppet face joke/surprise look when he was asked about that is the best thing I've ever seen.

[Joey Wahoo]

IThe worst they've come up with so far is whacky or racist supporters and the racist comments printed in his newsletter. Trust me, those will be hammered on by his GOP rivals when he starts rising in the polls and the Dems will go ape-shit over them if he gets the nomination.



Lets not kid ourselves. RP WILL get attacked when he makes his surge, and the attack WILL be over this stuff. We need to brace for it, and be ready to endure it.

Its not a question of whether the criticism is valid, its a question of how the media will make it look.

[Micahyah]

only thing is the newsletter mentioned above.

[ashlux]

I can see the racist attack will stick for some people (especially those just looking for an excuse). The earmarks attack may stick with some people, but when he votes against them, it's easily dismissed.

[AggieforPaul]

They'll bust out the racist newsletter, but anyone who does enough digging will believe him that he didnt write it.

[knappz]

He would be the new media darling if "they" had any dirt on this guy.

sorry, but the revolution will not be televised

[AstroSamurai]

I think the Morton Downey Jr thing will be brought up. It doesn't seem like much from our perspective, but even though it was 20 years ago and the whole premise of the show was to exercise the vocal chords, Ron Paul yelling like that, I think the media will have a field day with it. It's not really dirt but as Howard Dean once said:

Yeeaaaaaah!!!

[grizzums]

Some say when he is confronted with cold weather that he consistently gets post nasal drip...could be just a rumor...

[tmg19103]

He takes the Constitution too seriously. Actually, unlike virually every legislator in D.C., he abides by the Constitution. How dare he!

[WilliamC]

Greetings All,


Lets not kid ourselves. RP WILL get attacked when he makes his surge, and the attack WILL be over this stuff. We need to brace for it, and be ready to endure it.

Its not a question of whether the criticism is valid, its a question of how the media will make it look.

I'm not denying that this newsletter exists, but to my knowledge no one has ever come up with a copy of it, only 2nd hand reports. In otherwords, heresay. Not much to attack on.

William C Colley

[AggieforPaul]

I think the Morton Downey Jr thing will be brought up. It doesn't seem like much from our perspective, but even though it was 20 years ago and the whole premise of the show was to exercise the vocal chords, Ron Paul yelling like that, I think the media will have a field day with it. It's not really dirt but as Howard Dean once said:

Yeeaaaaaah!!!

His argument though was so good. But yeah, an out of context 30 second clip of him calling a guy who opposed legalizing drugs a fatty could be devastating.

[pdavis]

You guys are freakin' idiots, you guys obviously didn't see the last episode of Muary. Don't you guys know that Ron Paul has an illegitimate child and he refused to pay child support. :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

[Cindy]

Lets not kid ourselves. RP WILL get attacked when he makes his surge, and the attack WILL be over this stuff. We need to brace for it, and be ready to endure it.

Its not a question of whether the criticism is valid, its a question of how the media will make it look.

The media already came after for that stuff last Spring. None of it stuck because it was all debunked and or found to be of no significance.

Someone even recently tried to pull that racists crap on him again because they saw the vote on the Rosa Parks medal. Boy did the media have egg on their face when Paul explained what really went down the day of that vote. Total backfire.

Every time they try to attack him, he just comes up smelling like Roses.

The best they have against him is going after the worst of us. Though the neocons hate us no mater what we do, I think other Americans find it very refreshing and inspiring to see people coming out and getting passionate and active for their country, demanding Truth, Fairness and Justice in Politics.

[brianbb98]

You guys are freakin' idiots, you guys obviously didn't see the last episode of Muary. Don't you guys know that Ron Paul has an illegitimate child and he refused to pay child support. :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

you ARE the father!

[atilla]

he's a strong supporter of the constitution

[Energy]

I know I personally disagree about his stance as far as legalizing drugs, and that could be brought up, even though I'm not sure if Ron Paul will imediatly legalize cocaine or something, but is there anything that the media or the other canidates could run with to try an discredit him? Other than the Drug thing

Released today:

"Drug Criminalization Is Neither Compassionate Nor Conservative"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/starrick1.html

"The collateral damage from the War on Drugs has been astounding. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over the past 35 years trying to achieve the myth of a drug-free society. There is no such thing.

Conservatives are supposed to stand for the Constitution, liberty, and limited government interference in individual lives. The War on Drugs is incompatible with a free society, and the fact that Ron Paul is the only conservative candidate running for the White House in 2008 to recognize that is troubling to say the least."

[Lexx78]

Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone.

They can only throw Chocolate cookies to RP :D

[Steve4RP]

He has a long history of common sense and a complete lack of BS, both of which could be considered a problem for a politician.

[TheIndependent]

They'll bust out the racist newsletter, but anyone who does enough digging will believe him that he didnt write it.

Someone's been busting this out on Reddit, Digg, and other sites like Engadget's own coverage of the SAFE Act. People need to be there to present the truth.

[boberino]

Forgive me if this has already been posted.

I found it absolutely appalling when, a couple months ago, I saw a video on YouTube of Dr. Paul talking while he was eating. I could not stifle my absolute condemnation for the man and his entire platform because of this one little thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heaVKmBZp0s