The guy most likely to have “I hate Lew Rockwell” tatooed in multiple places on his body. There’s an objective input on this.
so apparently in one of the newletters there is a quote about voting against MLK day and it being called Hate Whitey day. Well according to politifact, Ron Paul voted FOR MLK day:
If it’s not Rockwell, who wrote it? It couldn’t have come out of thin air without Paul’s approval. It’s either Rockwell or (trololol) Rand Paul.
My problem with Ron Paul is that his reaction to the media asking him these questions is making everything worse. I realize that he hates it when they bring it up and that he doesn’t want to have to answer questions about the newsletters everyday but that’s just the reality of running as a front runner. They want you to snap and lose your cool. Walking off of an interview was a mistake. He should have just got used to the fact that they’re going to keep asking and face it, whether its fair or not. Just come up with a few regular talking points like “yes they were published under my name, I should have screened my ghost writers more carefully, it was my fault but I ask the voters to look at my record of voting, my consistency over the years on the issues and see that the offensive things written in those newsletters in no way match my views” …I’m just disappointed that he wasn’t ready to take this on when him and his staff should have known it was coming all along.
If the massive reporting capabilities of CNN (haha) can only come up with some newsletters that he didn’t write as a main point to discredit him then ron paul is much more of a gentlemen than me. Heaven knows what the powerful cnn would be able to dig up on me if they looked hard enough. For a man that has been in the public spotlight for several decades, his sincerity and track record is astounding.
I think it realy just shows how desperate they are to try and discredit him, by any means available.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
- My problem with Ron Paul is that his reaction to the media asking him these questions is making everything worse. I realize that he hates it when they bring it up and that he doesn’t want to have to answer questions about the newsletters everyday but that’s just the reality of running as a front runner. They want you to snap and lose your cool. Walking off of an interview was a mistake. He should have just got used to the fact that they’re going to keep asking and face it, whether its fair or not. Just come up with a few regular talking points like “yes they were published under my name, I should have screened my ghost writers more carefully, it was my fault but I ask the voters to look at my record of voting, my consistency over the years on the issues and see that the offensive things written in those newsletters in no way match my views” …I’m just disappointed that he wasn’t ready to take this on when him and his staff should have known it was coming all along.
I really don’t think he made a huge gaffe by walking away from that interview. He had answered the question as thoroughly as he was going to or was able to, and she just kept repeating the same thing, and reading off quotes from the newsletters. It’s obvious she had been repeatedly asking him about it because they had to edit the interview.
And honestly, I really do think that Rockwell is the chief suspect. It totally fits with the whole paleo-libertarian strategy him and Rothbard were persuing back then. The articles read a LOT more like Rockwell than Paul, and looking at the listed staff of the newsletter, Rockwell is one of the main employees.
You are entitled to your suspicions but I think its a bit crass to present them publicly with such flimsy evidence against such a stalwart figure of the movement.
In Tunk’s paper, there’s stronger evidence that Fred Reed wrote the newsletter articles in question.
Yeah, I’m getting a 404 on his link right now, I wanted to go back and read the stuff about Reed. Has anyone uploaded it anywhere else yet?
Are you implying that he wrote them, Rockwell (chief editor) winked, and Paul defended his friends like the principled man he is?
Maybe there’s a silver lining to all of this. “All publicity is good publicity,” and that’s all the more true when you have a great product that’s being chronically ignored.
It’d be hilarious if Ron Paul clinched Iowa, the media went for the jugular, and Paul slingshotted himself to the presidency by using the now-copious air time to explain his positions on the war on drugs, welfare, undeclared wars, etc.
I’m not so sure “all news is good news” - I don’t think it is uncommon for 1 thing to send a canidate down in flames due to one issue. The media / opponents will find a charecter flaw and stick with it.
I think there were more than a few canidates in the past (Gary Hart for an affair, Howard Dean for over enthusiasm, etc) who got shot down over seemingly trivial issues over stupid 1 trick pony things. It seems to be part of the nature of these primaries.
Fred Reed looks like Max Hardcore.
So yeah…
@vive Well yeah, but I’m thinking Paul may be different. Though it sounds like a cliche, he has real grassroots support, much larger than Howard Dean, and way more enthusiastic and commited. Plus it is obvious to most people who have spent much time listening to him that he is completely sincere, consistent, honest, principled, humble, and in every way the consummate anti-politician. He’d got so much going for him in terms of personal qualities that mentioning them all in one ad or piece is really hard. You’re forced to focus on a just a few at a time.
When he is held up to the the light, people can only like him more, not less. …Just as long as he starts taking the right tack with this newsletter thing, rather than getting defensive.
I have a sinking feeling that more Iowa Republicans will want to vote for him after hearing about this than before.
And so it begins…
This really doesn’t look good. His campaign better make some shit happen, fast.
No. I’m simply saying that, from what I’ve read, there seems to be at least slightly more evidence in favor of Fred Reed having written the articles in question than Lew Rockwell.
Has anyone (besides Tunk) actually read the newsletter? Are they actually racist? Please provide snippets (with context).
That’d certainly be a better outcome. In fact, if he came out and announced, “Yeah, I wrote them, HAHAAAA, God sent me to piss the world off!!” dressed up like he does on his website, it’d probably play pretty well. It’d look like Ron Paul had nothing to do with it, which I assume was the case.