You know why? Because sad as it is, people don’t care very much. Think about what it would take to get people to where you’re talking about. First of all, someone would have to find a “journalistically honest” way of accusing him. This would actually be a little hard to do. The best they might come up with is Rockwell, and the best link they could provide is that he was Paul’s congressional chief of staff literally 30 years ago. Then they would have to get some kind of soundbyte or writing of Lew’s that says unequivocally that he’s an anarchist. (Again, you’d think that might be easy, but finding something good enough to make the case in 3 lines, for a debate question, I don’t think so.) Then they’d have to find a way to paint this in such a way that it in any way reflects on Paul. Again, this would be nearly impossible.
Then you’ve got the fact that we’re talking about one single guy. Who else are they going to name? Who else could they substantially tie to him? Again, they have to have a substantial enough relationship for news (which generally means something with a title), and a substantial enough proof that the person warrants the term “anarchist”. There’s really no one near that criteria.
But let’s continue. Suppose they did take two guys, name them by name, quote them, and manage to craft some kind of question that sounds even remotely relevant. Paul’s not a bad speaker, but he’s no Christopher Hitchens either. And he would still have no trouble brushing that off like snow off a pleather jacket. More than likely it would just be a wasted question, and possibly even backfire on them…almost like giving Paul a softball.
But let’s continue. You say most people would be startled things on Mises.org and LRC. But you know what…the funny thing about seeing something is, they’d actually have to look at it first. And the truth of it is, not many people are going to bother doing that kind of research. And you know what else? Those who care enough to do that, are probably a bit sharper and more aware anyway…and odds are, they’re much more likely to pick up ideas before they find enough to scare them off.
I mean think about it. Why do you think you haven’t had bloggers and low-level editorial anchors or columnists saying “Hey have you guys seen this Mises.org site? This is the kind of stuff Ron Paul is into. Get a load of this.” You don’t hear that because (a) they don’t know anything about it, or (b) they know enough about the nature of media coverage to know that mentioning it would only bring it more attention…and the only thing you can call attention to and still have it be a total negative affect is some kind of brutal or violent crime. You know all this “no such thing as bad press/ Good press, bad press, doesn’t matter as long as they get your name right” stuff? It’s true. I guarantee you, these people do not want more people finding out about Mises.org.
The only person I’ve ever heard come close is Squeak Levin. You know him. He’s this bald moron who sounds like an elf with a Napoleon complex, but only more annoying. He loves ad hominem, and hates pretty much everything else. Except for neoconservatism. (Well, his version, anyway). Just listen to him for 5 minutes and you’ll realize he’ll use anything he can possibly think of to attack whomever he’s focused on at the time. You’ll hear in that link how he tries to assassinate Michael Savage by oh-so damning tidbits like “he used to push these supplements”. (Savage holds master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology, and a PhD in nutritional ethnomedicine, and has written books on herbal medicine and homeopathy. Yes, I’m sure he’s “pushed supplements”.)
If you’d like more on Levin, see Tom Woods. If you look through some of the debate Woods mentions there (also covered on the forum here and here), you’ll find a typical fashion in which Levin brings up Rockwell…basically just saying he’s a kook.
This is the kind of person it takes to try to perform the attack you’re talking about. Basically, it’s desperate, it looks desperate, it isn’t effective, and in fact may very well backfire to a point at which you actually end up ginning up more support for the guy you’re trying to assassinate. That’s why you don’t see it happening.
If you notice, in the post debate interview, Hannity did bring up the newsletters, just like I implied they would.