# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Hannity about to go on attack

## RonPaulCult

Just teased it on his radio show after interviewing newt.  Looks like he'll be doing it in the next 10 minutes.  

Here's the live feed if you want to hear the garbage.  

http://player.streamtheworld.com/_pl...adel/?sid=5864

EDIT:  He keeps teasing this but he hasn't done the segment yet.  My best estimate would be around 4:30 ET now (looks like he'll interview Mitt first).

----------


## RonPaulCult

I guess he cancelled the interview and decided to smear him instead.  Classy.

----------


## coastie

On his show now...

----------


## Sola_Fide

So it begins...

----------


## The One

I'm embarrassed to admit that 4 years ago I overreacted and freaked out when the newsletters came out.  It turned out to be no big deal, and I ended up looking like a jackass.  Everybody chill...and save yourselves the embarrassment.

----------


## NY-Dano

> I guess he cancelled the interview and decided to smear him instead.  Classy.


No, he said Ron would be on later. I think they bumped him for Newt.

----------


## RonPaulCult

I doubt Hannity is going to mention that Ron Paul absolutely 100% DID NOT WRITE THEM.  He'll just read the quotes and call him a racist.

----------


## braane

> I guess he cancelled the interview and decided to smear him instead.  Classy.


Hannity must really be fearful of the good Dr.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> No, he said Ron would be on later. I think they bumped him for Newt.


noooooooooooo he said "why is Ron Paul getting a pass on his newsletters.  That's coming up next"

Also, the interview has been cancelled.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Well.

----------


## dbill27

Ron should refuse to talk to hannity anymore, publicly call him an embarassment to conservatism and to journalism and then call him a statist.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Hannity must really be fearful of the good Dr.


Ever since the PPP poll came out - they are ALL scared

----------


## fearthereaperx

I seriously doubt Ron is going to be on after an attack. Most likely he canceled the interview this morning..

----------


## Publicani

He started his program with love fest with Newt. Newt said "and that's why I called you...." "No, no, no, we called you." Two main points: 1. Newt is a real conservative, 2. Republican candidates shouldn't criticize each other but only Barack Obama.
Then Hannity said: "We'll talk about Ron Paul newsletterts: why there was so little scrutiny of it." 
It looks like it's a strategy. Will hear about the newsletters tomorrow during the debate as well.

----------


## sailingaway

So, gee, cancel having Ron on so he could defend himself!!!

It was clear last night he actually thinks Ron wrote this.  Levin isn't believable as Hannity because Levin so clearly froths at the mouth over Ron at all times. Levin seems to have sold Hannity a bill of goods, though.

I am not going to tune in to a hit job.  Let me know what we need to counter.

I am pissed at Hannity, though, not only did he not TRY to ask for the other side as any journalist should, he specifically CANCELED a preplanned appearance which would have given Ron the opportunity to respond.

Whatever.  Here we go.

----------


## Johncjackson

I said the newsletters could be an issue, and RP will have to handle it better this time. if everyone thinks it's no big deal, then what's the worry? I just think it needs to be better handled, is all.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> I seriously doubt Ron is going to be on after an attack. Most likely he canceled the interview this morning..


It was Hannity who cancelled.

----------


## braane

> noooooooooooo he said "why is Ron Paul getting a pass on his newsletters.  That's coming up next"


Only if he would say the truth, which is that they absolutely weren't written by him, then it wouldn't be a problem.

----------


## dbill27

Can we call into his show?

----------


## danda

snowballs anyone?

----------


## Publicani

> Ron should refuse to talk to hannity anymore, publicly call him an embarassment to conservatism and to journalism and then call him a statist.


I agree. Maybe a major speech is needed about Hannity, Rush, and Levin.

----------


## blakjak

> noooooooooooo he said "why is Ron Paul getting a pass on his newsletters.  That's coming up next"
> 
> Also, the interview has been cancelled.


The interview is not cancelled - he will be on later.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Can we call into his show?


You can try, but they won't let you on if you say you're a Ron Paul supporter.

Please only call in if you can handle yourself well on the phone.  These guys are pros at destroying people they don't agree with.  

If you ARE good on the phone, I do say jam his phone lines.  Just don't tell them what you REALLY want to talk about or again, they'll hang up on your.

----------


## jmdrake

> So it begins...

----------


## ForLibertyFight

Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> The interview is not cancelled - he will be on later.


Wanna bet 10,000 dollars?  It's been cancelled.

----------


## ItsTime

Lets see, Perry runs super anti-gay ads and his poll numbers go up in Iowa. I don't see how this could hurt Ron at all, even with the fact that Ron did not write the letters.

----------


## sailingaway

> I said the newsletters could be an issue, and RP will have to handle it better this time. if everyone thinks it's no big deal, then what's the worry? I just think it needs to be better handled, is all.


because Hannity had Ron to go on, and should have given him an opportunity to respond.  CANCELLING his appearance and blindsiding him has to be to specifically let the story spread and percolate before Ron can respond, so he has to chase it.  That is really lousy.

----------


## Johncjackson

> Only if he would say the truth, which is that they absolutely weren't written by him, then it wouldn't be a problem.


I don't think he's ever going to tell the full truth that some people want. He's too loyal, at the expense of political gains. Personally I think there is someone else who could make it a lot easier on him, but it's not going to happen.

----------


## brushfire

hannity - what a f'n statist...

----------


## sailingaway

> I agree. Maybe a major speech is needed about Hannity, Rush, and Levin.


That would turn a ton of partisan people against him and distract from the issues -- a place where he wins.

----------


## RP Supporter

> Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.


Then we'd have story after story of the media asking "why would Ron Paul hire a racist to write his newsletters?"

You can't win with these guys. Luckily, I don't think the Republican electorate really enjoys conservatives being labeled as racists. They get enough of it in their day to day lives opposing Obama. Hopefully this backfires and brings more people to Paul (Ala Rand and Aqua Buddah.)

----------


## Johncjackson

> Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.


I agree. I don't think Paul is going to name names. If the writer wants to come clean it's up to him. I'm not naming names either, but it's pretty obvious.

----------


## erowe1

> The interview is not cancelled - he will be on later.


Who was it that started the rumor that it was cancelled?

Wait, let me guess...

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't think he's ever going to tell the full truth that some people want. He's too loyal, at the expense of political gains. Personally I think there is someone else who could make it a lot easier on him, but it's not going to happen.


He didn't write them.  That is all people need to know. He didn't write or approve those handful of statements over 10 years, and they don't sound remotely like him, and he has a thirty year youtube library anyone can dip into to prove that to themselves.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> I agree. I don't think Paul is going to name names. If the writer wants to come clean it's up to him. I'm not naming names either, but it's pretty obvious.


I don't think Ron knows who wrote them.  He was totally not involved for some time.

----------


## The One

> I'm embarrassed to admit that 4 years ago I overreacted and freaked out when the newsletters came out.  It turned out to be no big deal, and I ended up looking like a jackass.  Everybody chill...and save yourselves the embarrassment.


...or just go ahead and freak out.

----------


## Matthew Zak

Someone should call in (in the screening process tell them they want to tell Hannity he's a great american and that he's making american proud or something) and when they get on, tell Hannity that he's in denial if he thinks this is still his party.

----------


## joshnorris14

I don't see why people think this was Lew Rockwell. The guy has done enough for the Libertarian movement to get the benefit of the doubt and not get blacklisted.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Who was it that started the rumor that it was cancelled?
> 
> Wait, let me guess...


MC changed the official "Ron Paul on Hannity 12/14" thread earlier today and said that Hannity cancelled.  

Plus Hannity hasn't said anything about Ron Paul coming on today (and didn't say it yesterday either)

----------


## Sola_Fide

Wait, is this thing canceled or not?  Collins might lose his officiality after this...

----------


## RP Supporter

Hannity should be ashamed of himself. Attacking another Republican. He's the one who always spouts Reagan's 11th commandment. Seriously, has there ever been another case where he's attacked  a Republican? And since when did he become so concerned about racism, given some of the things he's defended over the years.

----------


## Publicani

I may be stupid or insensitive. I've read all the quotes from the newsletters and didn't find a single racist quote there.

----------


## low preference guy

> I don't see why people think this was Lew Rockwell. The guy has done enough for the Libertarian movement to get the benefit of the doubt and not get blacklisted.


Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.

----------


## ItsTime

Behind the scenes of Hannity finding out Ron Paul's latest poll numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc

----------


## Original_Intent

> snowballs anyone?


I said in another thread on this - Don't send a snowball to do a rock's job.

----------


## eleganz

> Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.


Then we need to fully dissect all of this because Ron will be in the limelight if he wins Iowa and the media could do a lot of damage to him in that one week before NH.

Everything needs to be put out and if we present the information in a balanced and unbiased manner the media might even use it...they use our military donations figures..why not?

----------


## joshnorris14

> Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.


Exactly. in their hitpiece they called Rothbard out for promoting racism to tie the paleoconservative and paleolibertarian movements together.

The disdain they have for Rothbardians makes their bias very obvious.

----------


## Canderson

Did he already talk about it?? Hes blithering on about something else now.

----------


## Publicani

Hannity is back from the break and is talking about Christmas spirit. Oh $#@!...

----------


## raider4paul

Did I miss his propaganda? He's talking about the pipeline.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Did he already talk about it?? Hes blithering on about something else now.


Nope.  He teased it about 20 minutes ago - I figured he would be bringing it up soon but I guess it will be later in the show.  

Sorry to make you guys listen to this trash.

----------


## wgadget

Is someone going to call and complain about this Lee Kington moderator at his forum, the guy who trashes Ron Paul with lies?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...is-name./page4

----------


## sailingaway

> Then we need to fully dissect all of this because Ron will be in the limelight if he wins Iowa and the media could do a lot of damage to him in that one week before NH.
> 
> Everything needs to be put out and if we present the information in a balanced and unbiased manner the media might even use it...they use our military donations figures..why not?


no we don't.  We only need to show Ron didn't write them.  If they don't want to vote for Ron because he didn't exercise sufficient oversight over a separately managed newsletter using his name, while he was NOT in public office but was practicing medicine full time, refusing to take medicare or medicaid, yet serving some of Texas's poorest people in Brazoria county, at reduced prices or for free, never turning away anyone of any race or religion because they couldn't pay, then let them.

----------


## economics102

> no we don't.  We only need to show Ron didn't write them.  If they don't want to vote for Ron because he didn't exercise sufficient oversight over a separately managed newsletter using his name, while he was NOT in public office but was practicing medicine full time, refusing to take medicare or medicaid, yet serving some of Texas's poorest people in Brazoria county, at reduced prices or for free, never turning away anyone of any race or religion because they couldn't pay, then let them.


Wow. You really nailed that one to the wall.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Just said there are polls out now that has both Gingrich and Romney beating Obama.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Just said "we'll examine Ron Paul's newsletter and why the media isn't reporting it, and whether or not he's gotten a pass for them."

----------


## Publicani

> no we don't.  We only need to show Ron didn't write them.


 Not sure even this is needed. What's the big deal? Something was said that taken out of the context might be misinterpreted, so what?

----------


## RonPaulCult

"later on we'll examine Ron Paul's newsletter and all the things in it and why the media has ignored it.  Has the media given him a pass"

He just said this, although I think Mitt is on next.

----------


## Publicani

I am beginning to suspect he's bringing the newsletters to make sure RP supporters are listening to his freaking show. I can't stand him anymore. Boring. I am out.

----------


## sailingaway

No they had a nasty red meat tone to them.  Ron doesn't use red meat, period, however.  It is something unusual about him, even at the more 'conventional' level of red meat. He considers it demagoguery.  It goes to whether he is who he seems to be, and it is who he IS that gets him votes.

----------


## dbill27

If anyone calls in perhaps they should mention that not 2 days ago hannity and cain were on his show bashes the media for the blatant bias and personal smear campaigns against the GOP canidates. I mean seriously, hannity is a piece of $#@!. "Why the media isn't reporting it"? Because they already $#@!ing have sean, years ago and it was baseless. The question is, why are you reporting it?

----------


## wgadget

Ron Paul has class.

Hannity and Friends--not so much.

This is how we win.

----------


## erowe1

> MC changed the official "Ron Paul on Hannity 12/14" thread earlier today and said that Hannity cancelled.  
> 
> Plus Hannity hasn't said anything about Ron Paul coming on today (and didn't say it yesterday either)


I was just kidding. I knew who the culprit was.

----------


## danda

Rather than being defensive, Ron (and we) need to go on the offensive about this.

1) Ron, (and we) should challenge anyone to dig up any audio or video from Ron's entire lifetime of him personally saying anything racist.  Why are we confident it can't be done?   Because racism requires classifying people into groups rather than treating them as individuals.  Ron Paul's core beliefs, which he has consistently held his entire life, require treating everyone as an individual, uniquely responsible for his or her actions.

2) We should dig up audio, video, and essays where Ron Paul speaks out against racism.  He has often made the point about groups vs individuals, so should not be too hard to find.

3) perhaps create a website or facebook group:  ronpaulagainstracism.com, or something like that.  Which highlights this audio, video, essays, and quotes.

4) We have no control over this, but I think It would help if Ron Paul would express more remorse over the newletter quotes and apologize for not scrutinizing them more carefully before publishing, as they did bear his name.  People forgive much more readily when real remorse is expressed.  And it would help if he would name the author.

This is something the grassroots can do.  Does anyone have the the time and energy to run with it?

----------


## bunklocoempire

My thanks to the souls listening and reporting, for goodness sakes be careful and don't get any on ya! 

Taking one for the team has been raised to a whole new height!  Bring Oxygen!

Bunkloco

----------


## phill4paul

Hannity is having Newt and Mitt on. Then he says he will discuss the newsletters. No air time for Ron to rebut.

----------


## Standing Liberty

Just tuned in for a minute. Love how he has love
fest with both Newt and Mitt, then says how the media is
ignoring these newsletters.  Hannity is satist hack
dip$#@!.

----------


## Canderson

If anyone calls in, dismiss the newletter, and bring up military donations.

----------


## ord33

Watch out for an additional attack saying that Dr. Paul profited by making over $1 million from these newsletters over that time from subscription fees. A guy on Facebook was going on and on about it trying to draw a supposed correlation that they profited from them and how could they not know the content.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Just mentioned the newsletters again, and that Ron Paul claims he didn't know anything about them.  

Won't stop Hannity from reading the quotes though I bet, and linking them to Ron Paul.  Scumbag.

----------


## dmitchell

Has Ron Paul ever offered a direct apology for the newsletter content? I seem to remember him being combative when confronted with them. Why not have the campaign work up a sincere, sound-bite length apology that Ron can use during debates and interviews? The letters may have been ghost written but Ron Paul does actually have some degree of moral responsibility for them. Don't try to defend it, just offer a sincere apology and let the chips fall where they may.

----------


## Justinfrom1776

This show is such bull$#@!.. Hate Obama, Hate Obama, Hate Obama, Commercial, Commercial, Hate Obama, Hate Obama, Commercial, Hate Obama.. He can't even get into why he hates Obama anymore because his Neocon sweethearts Newt & Mitt promote the same Ideology.. People are wising up to this bull $#@!.

----------


## Carole

It is hilarious the way the MSM "teases" Dr. Paul to keep viewers tuned in. They absolutely know their ratings go up when he makes an appearance, so they milk it for as long as possible.

----------


## wgadget

> It is hilarious the way the MSM "teases" Dr. Paul to keep viewers tuned in. They absolutely know their ratings go up when he makes an appearance, so they milk it for as long as possible.


But I thought Ron was canceled?

----------


## Publicani

> Rather than being defensive, Ron (and we) need to go on the offensive about this.
> 
> 1) Ron, (and we) should challenge anyone to dig up any audio or video from Ron's entire lifetime of him personally saying anything racist.  Why are we confident it can't be done?   Because racism requires classifying people into groups rather than treating them as individuals.  Ron Paul's core beliefs, which he has consistently held his entire life, require treating everyone as an individual, uniquely responsible for his or her actions.
> 
> 2) We should dig up audio, video, and essays where Ron Paul speaks out against racism.  He has often made the point about groups vs individuals, so should not be too hard to find.
> 
> 3) perhaps create a website or facebook group:  ronpaulagainstracism.com, or something like that.  Which highlights this audio, video, essays, and quotes.
> 
> 4) We have no control over this, but I think It would help if Ron Paul would express more remorse over the newletter quotes and apologize for not scrutinizing them more carefully before publishing, as they did bear his name.  People forgive much more readily when real remorse is expressed.  And it would help if he would name the author.
> ...


ALl they want is to control the agenda. You want to roll over and hand it to them?

----------


## rich34

This is about the same damn time the MSM brought this $#@! up back in 07.  Right after the Dec. 16th money bomb actually.  I reckon Hannity feels the need to go ahead and get this started so in a week or so it'll have legs.  They're mad because Ron BLASTED Newt for his big government NON-conservative ways.  I'm sure Hannity is also pissed himself for being called a statist which he IS! My question to Hannity is, why did Ron have to do the reporting and remind everyone that Newt is nothing more than a big government Liberal republican?  Why is your punk ass wanting to elect another liberal John McCain?  Sean Hannity shouldn't surprise anyone, this is the same guy that endorsed Rudy Ghoooliani...

Guys, this money bomb better be HUGE because the campaign is going to need all the money it can get to counter the coming attacks.  I hope those football players that recently came out and endorsed Ron have a lot of friends and can convince them to donate this Friday.  Not only that, but those in the military and alternative health field better pony up.  I'm also hoping there are some closet Hollywood stars that are willing to donate and support Ron, you listening Jon Stewart?   Call up your friends, buddy!  This is going to get big time dirty folks, get ready.

----------


## Inkblots

My question is, what is the best strategy for countering the newsletter smear when people bring it up, whether in person or online? Should we: 
- Simply state that Paul didn't write them and leave it at that.  Possibly point out that the prose style is totally different from Dr. Paul's and that the writings contradict what he's written before and since

- Go into detail and explain that during the period when the letters with offensive content went out – 1989 to 1994, Ron Paul had left the GOP in protest over the uncontrolled rise in deficit spending under Reagan, and then left politics altogether in disgust following his crushing defeat as the Libertarian nominee in 1988.  And so he had returned to private practice as a doctor and was paying little attention to national politics and, unfortunately, no attention to the various newsletters he had started while in politics in the early ‘80s.  So Ron Paul or any campaign for him had nothing to do with that content, and he wasn't even aware of it..

- Talk about what Ron has actually written about racism, things like: "Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups." 

- Talk about the fact that he doesn't even know who wrote them.  I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I've seen this point made before: "Apparently, the problem stems from Dr Paul's libertarian concept of copyright: as a libertarian minded thinker, Dr Paul publishes his newsletter without copyright; as a consequence, throughout the years, many individuals and groups with zero affiliation with the congressman have used his name, without first seeking or obtaining permission, and, wishing to promote their own ideas and writings, have republished Paul's congressional newsletter, and added their own editorials and articles, in an effort to add credibility to their racist views."

I only wonder if that last point is correct, because so many people seem to think Lew Rockwell wrote the bad stuff.

----------


## gls

> This is about the same damn time the MSM brought this $#@! up back in 07.  Right after the Dec. 16th money bomb actually.


Actually last time this was brought up the night before the New Hampshire primary. It was a coordinated attack by Reason Magazine and some other liberal website.

----------


## JCF

Lol Romney just listing off his talking points.

----------


## Liberty74

Third Party run if the statist and fake conservatives (neocons) go after Ron on this to destroy his chances. Hannity is such a shill.

----------


## AlexG

Wow Mitt comes out swinging at Newt lol

----------


## Carole



----------


## PauliticsPolitics

> Wow Mitt comes out swinging at Newt lol


Yea, it sounds like he watched all of Ron's adverts.

----------


## Tunink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dUox...eature=related

----------


## Publicani

> My question is, what is the best strategy for countering the newsletter smear when people bring it up, whether in person or online?


"Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual."
—Ron Paul, CNN, January 10, 2008

Let me repeat:

" The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?'"

----------


## sailingaway

> Watch out for an additional attack saying that Dr. Paul profited by making over $1 million from these newsletters over that time from subscription fees. A guy on Facebook was going on and on about it trying to draw a supposed correlation that they profited from them and how could they not know the content.


It is hard to find logic in internet poison because it usually grows 'operator game style' with people recharacterizing the nonsense they heard from someone else.  So they are saying over the 10 years it ran there were a million in subscriber fees?  and there are what, 10 questionable sentences over those ten years?  So we should find out how many sentences there were in the newsletters over ten years to divide and find out the percentage of fees 'tainted' by bad content?  And then find out how much fo those subscriber fees to the independent editor actually went to Ron as a licensing fee for his name, and then apply that percentage to see how much of what went to Ron was tainted?  And then decide if he should have known in advance this would happen and as a private citizen not politician should have protected himself?

I find that argument in the 'don't feed the trolls' category.

----------


## Inkblots

> Has Ron Paul ever offered a direct apology for the newsletter content? I seem to remember him being combative when confronted with them. Why not have the campaign work up a sincere, sound-bite length apology that Ron can use during debates and interviews? The letters may have been ghost written but Ron Paul does actually have some degree of moral responsibility for them. Don't try to defend it, just offer a sincere apology and let the chips fall where they may.


But he has.  Ron Paul said, "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. ... When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

----------


## wgadget

Take-away:

1. Ron did not write them.
2. Ron is not a racist.

End of story.

----------


## wgadget

The accuser has the burden of proof, right?

Let's see PROOF Ron wrote them.

----------


## SilentBull

I'm a little nervous but Republicans must be tired of being called "racists" by now. I think the initial reaction will be that people won't believe it, since they're so used to this.

----------


## The Midnight Ride



----------


## Publicani

funny, Drudge came out with the headline that MSNBC calls Romney KKK. Let's start the republican political debate: "Who is the worst racist, uh?"

----------


## blakjak

> "Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual."
> —Ron Paul, CNN, January 10, 2008


wow. now that is how you handle the issue

----------


## Inkblots

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPnAJeVuvw


Great video!

----------


## dmitchell

> But he has.  Ron Paul said, "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. ... When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."


That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.

----------


## Give me liberty

So since i dont like hannity what is happening now? is hannity attacking Ron Paul on those newsletters? sigh those again? its like there heads are stuck in 08 or something i would know if Ron Paul is on hannity.

----------


## Carole

Who the hell called who here? Looks like stupid Newt got his wires crossed as Hannity jumps in immediately to "correct" him. We called you. Newt. 




> so little scrutiny of it." 
> It looks like it's a strategy. Will hear about the newsletters tomorrow during the debate as well.

----------


## theczar1776

Before accepting the premise that the quotes are racist please read the following.


http://takimag.com/article/why_the_b...#axzz1gWszdzjZ

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.


Wasn't there already a confession about this?




> I will confess, I wrote them, but Murray Rothbard helped me with the spelling. I was more of a songwriter. It was satire and hyperbole. I'm terribly sorry, I'll attempt to avoid this in the future, but I may not be able to help myself, cause I'm Rick James, bitch!







> I may be stupid or insensitive. I've read all the quotes from the newsletters and didn't find a single racist quote there.


It is certainly overblown.

----------


## wgadget

> That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.


Apologize for something he didn't do?

----------


## Inkblots

> That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.


Well, I kinda thought taking moral responsibility for something was the whole point of an apology?

----------


## JCF

> So since i dont like hannity what is happening now? is hannity attacking Ron Paul on those newsletters? sigh those again? its like there heads are stuck in 08 or something i would know if Ron Paul is on hannity.


He's talking to Romney. Newsletter discussion is probably up next.

----------


## airborne373

Sean Hannity = Rachael Maddow

----------


## Give me liberty

> He's talking to Romney. Newsletter discussion is probably up next.


with paul i assume?

----------


## Carole

No, tune in to the Fox debate to hear Ron Paul talk about this.

----------


## wgadget

> with paul i assume?


Ron was canceled.  Hannity the shill will be talking badly about Ron behind his back.

Did you expect anything less?

----------


## JCF

> with paul i assume?



Negative. He's talking about it with someone from the American Spectator.

----------


## JamesButabi

> - Talk about what Ron has actually written about racism, things like: "Racism is simply the ugliest form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."


Its so blatantly obvious that Ron didn't write these newsletter nor is he racist.  I think the quoted method is the only way to address it ala Rand and the civil rights nonsense

----------


## rgampell

> Apologize for something he didn't do?


It's not just about apologizing; he needs to look and sound ASHAMED of them.  And he does not.  He should also say that it will certainly cost him some votes, and that it OUGHT to.  IMO, his CNN answer in which he pivoted to racism charges sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black."

----------


## sailingaway

> That's pretty good but I don't see an "I'm sorry" in there.


you know, that is the kind of thing I hear from those who don't want Ron to win under any circumstances.  They just keep raising the bar on what Ron 'has to do to put it to rest'.  Apologize using their specific phrases, or give the media a goat for sacrifice in who he might guess wrote them, or something.  None of that goes to his quality as a presidential candidate.

----------


## JCF

He's going to keep talking to Romney after the break, but he did say this:

"Later on, Ron Paul, [newsletters] are there things in them that the media hasn't vetted yet?"

Talking to someone with the American Spectator about it.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator?  That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.

----------


## iamse7en

Did he say jeffrey lord from AmSpec? Uh oh... here comes the fire and hatred.

----------


## gjdavis60

He's going to have Jeffery Lord on to talk about the newsletters!!  The battle lines are drawn.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's not just about apologizing; he needs to look and sound ASHAMED of them.  And he does not.  He should also say that it will certainly cost him some votes, and that it OUGHT to.  IMO, his CNN answer in which he pivoted to racism charges sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black."


are you working for some other candidate?

----------


## lew

You guys aren't being consistent here.  Don't act like that if there was some Newsletter that went out for 20 years under Romney's or Newt's name, that we wouldn't be clamoring to make commercials about it.

The fact is that these Newsletters exist.  They've always been the bane in Ron Paul's possibility to rise in the polls.  It doesn't matter what Raimondo thinks about the issue or you or I.  What matters is how Paul will respond when the MSM says "So, in your Newsletter that bares your name, what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"

The Campaign can't be so stupid to think they can just ignore this, refuse to say who the author is, state it's 'ancient history', or any of that mumbo jumbo and expect it to go away.  The masses will want some heartfelt apology that the material is downright awful and that he utterly regrets it.  Anything less, and the MSM will hammer this.  And we will lose.  This is the pivotal thorn in his entire campaign.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Apparently this guy is often going after Paul:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...-neoliberal-re

----------


## Xchange

Lord is worse than Levin.


Major league douche bag

----------


## Inkblots

> Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator?  That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.


Jeff Lord?  Oh geez, not that hack.

----------


## iamse7en

> Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator?  That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.


See this for a taste... I believe Jack Hunter (and maybe Tom Woods) has gone up against the guy before... 

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C...l+jeffrey+lord

----------


## airborne373

Sean Hannity and his clown college compatriot Rush Limbaugh have lost 30% of their audiences lying for the state. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-...ratings-2011-5

----------


## sailingaway

> He's going to keep talking to Romney after the break, but he did say this:
> 
> "Later on, Ron Paul, [newsletters] are there things in them that the media hasn't vetted yet?"
> 
> Talking to someone with the American Spectator about it.


Jeffery Lord?  LOL!  Lord and Levin, call out the baying hounds.

----------


## Jtorsella

How did this happen? I thought Rand had silenced Hannity.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Hannity will be interviewing Jeffery Lord, American Spectator:




> In August 2011, Jeffrey Lord wrote an article in The American Spectator which was critical of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), and the views of some of Ron Paul's supporters.[5] It sparked considerable debate within the conservative movement.

----------


## lew

> are you working for some other candidate?


oh shut up.  If you think Paul can weather a charge of racism, with the EVIDENCE BEING A NEWSLETTER WITH HIS OWN NAME ACROSS THE BANNER, simply by stating what he said in 2008, you're a moron.  As Paul rises in the polls, he will be hit hard with this.  And he needs to provide an answer that the masses will accept.  If he acts like Cain and just tries to ignore it or say it's history, he will lose, exactly like Cain.

----------


## Xchange



----------


## ord33

> Apparently this guy is often going after Paul:
> 
> http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...-neoliberal-re


It looks like he makes a living by hating Ron Paul: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-a...w=1366&bih=667

Some really nasty stuff.

----------


## Publicani

Hannity is bringing Jeffrey Lord from American spectator.
Tom woods responded to this crap a w few months ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8

----------


## specsaregood

> what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"


Thats all?  Are you saying that isn't true?

----------


## wgadget

> Who is Jeffery Lord of the American Spectator?  That's who they are bringing in to trash Paul.


OMG...LORD IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST NEOCON LIARS OUT THERE.  

I heard him one day on Medved, and he is a fool whose logic makes NO SENSE.

----------


## Give me liberty

> Hannity will be interviewing Jeffery Lord, American Spectator:


Ah you mean this werdio Jeffery?

----------


## sailingaway

> You guys aren't being consistent here.  Don't act like that if there was some Newsletter that went out for 20 years under Romney's or Newt's name, that we wouldn't be clamoring to make commercials about it.
> 
> The fact is that these Newsletters exist.  They've always been the bane in Ron Paul's possibility to rise in the polls.  It doesn't matter what Raimondo thinks about the issue or you or I.  What matters is how Paul will respond when the MSM says "So, in your Newsletter that bares your name, what does this mean: “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”"
> 
> The Campaign can't be so stupid to think they can just ignore this, refuse to say who the author is, state it's 'ancient history', or any of that mumbo jumbo and expect it to go away.  The masses will want some heartfelt apology that the material is downright awful and that he utterly regrets it.  Anything less, and the MSM will hammer this.  And we will lose.  This is the pivotal thorn in his entire campaign.


Ron wouldn't, and no, we would snark about them, but not expect it to be such a huge deal when everyone knows he didn't write them.  They always start at the 'he said' rather than 'it was written in a 'Ron Paul Newsletter''' and only later in the media cycle concede he didn't write them.  They would not give this treatment to anyone else over what at most was a lack of oversight in a personal business matter.  

And you know why they wouldn't with others, and why they do with Ron?

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

The man is as clean as a whistle.

----------


## Inkblots

Jeff Lord is an ahistorical twit who doesn't understand anything about the conservative position, lies or is genuinely ignorant of America's foreign policy throughout the 20th century, and thinks simply asserting Ron Paul is a liberal and a racist is a winning argument.

The doofus even called Ron Paul a "neo-liberal", hilariously failing to grasp that that is an actual academic term for the foreign policy Jeff Lord himself espouses!

----------


## JamesButabi

Guess he didn't get enough snowballs last time.  Some people never learn

----------


## Havax

I'm sure Hannity got the word from above to cancel the interview with Ron since the plan is now to trash him as hard as possible. I fully expect the debate tomorrow to be absolutely absurd and dirty.

----------


## wgadget

> Sean Hannity and his clown college compatriot Rush Limbaugh have lost 30% of their audiences lying for the state. 
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-...ratings-2011-5


Fantastic news!

----------


## 69360

> oh shut up.  If you think Paul can weather a charge of racism, with the EVIDENCE BEING A NEWSLETTER WITH HIS OWN NAME ACROSS THE BANNER, simply by stating what he said in 2008, you're a moron.  As Paul rises in the polls, he will be hit hard with this.  And he needs to provide an answer that the masses will accept.  If he acts like Cain and just tries to ignore it or say it's history, he will lose, exactly like Cain.


Newt got away with racism without hardly a blink. "Spanish is the language of the Ghetto" "Palestinians are an invented people"

This is a GOP primary.

Plus nobody believes somebody with Ron's record wrote them. 

It's not the big deal people on here are making it out to be. It's a dying gasp of the Neocons before their world gets turned upside down in 3 weeks.

----------


## lew

> Thats all?  Are you saying that isn't true?


Cool.  Expect to lose the election with this tripe.

----------


## dmitchell

> Well, I kinda thought taking moral responsibility for something was the whole point of an apology?


It isn't. Can you think of any time in your life when someone wronged you and you would have been satisfied with, "I take moral responsibility for it?" Need to hear those words, "I'm sorry," in my opinion.

----------


## 69360

> I'm sure Hannity got the word from above to cancel the interview with Ron since the plan is now to trash him as hard as possible. I fully expect the debate tomorrow to be absolutely absurd and dirty.


Cavuto won't throw Ron under the bus.

----------


## RonPaulCult

The good news is that I think Hannity is going on vacation for the next few weeks.  Win!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Hannity is sucking us in for ratings. More commercials than usual.

----------


## Austin

> 3) perhaps create a website or facebook group:  ronpaulagainstracism.com, or something like that.  Which highlights this audio, video, essays, and quotes.


Ron Paul is Racist

----------


## davidhperry

Please breath and remain calm.  We knew the newsletter story would be rehashed at some point, and this is expected.  If you think RP isn't ready to handle this, then you don't know RP.  However, if he can't handle intense criticism like this, then he's probably not cut out for the presidency. :|

----------


## JCF

> Ron Paul is Racist








..

----------


## specsaregood

> Cool.  Expect to lose the election with this tripe.


I see you didn't answer the question.  It is rational, it has nothing to do with any specific genetics though.

----------


## lucent

> Thats all?  Are you saying that isn't true?


Hence, why it always fizzles out. They aren't actually racist. Politically incorrect, yes, but not racist. The only people who really care are progressives and people who hate Ron anyway.

----------


## gjdavis60

So I wonder how Lord will square his accusations that Paul is a racist AND a liberal?  Maybe he'll even accuse Ron of being an anarchist!  Ooooh.

----------


## Captain Shays

> I said in another thread on this - Don't send a snowball to do a rock's job.


Rocks inside the snowballs!!!!!

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Cavuto won't throw Ron under the bus.


Cavuto may get to ask a few questions, but he isn't the moderator as somebody wrongly said in the forums the other day.  That Bret kid will be the moderator.  

Neil will ask maybe ONE question to Ron Paul if we're lucky.

----------


## wgadget

> Hannity is sucking us in for ratings. More commercials than usual.


'Cept I'm not in. I'm here.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Newt got away with racism without hardly a blink. "Spanish is the language of the Ghetto" "Palestinians are an invented people"


Newt can do anything. He is the GOP establishment candidate.

----------


## wgadget

So Hannity CANCELS Ron's interview, and replaces him with Romney, Gingrich and Jeffery Lord?


LOL

----------


## dmitchell

> It's not just about apologizing; he needs to look and sound ASHAMED of them.  And he does not.  He should also say that it will certainly cost him some votes, and that it OUGHT to.  IMO, his CNN answer in which he pivoted to racism charges sounded an awful lot like "some of my best friends are black."


Yeah I pretty much agree with this.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Haha...Hannity is bringing out the neocon "big guns" Jeffrey Lord.  This guy got shamed a few months ago by Tom Woods.

----------


## Carole

I disagree. Allow Dr. Paul to do his own talking.

----------


## ord33

Often here, people throw out the word "neocon" without necessarily it having merit. In this case, I think American Spectator is basically the foundation magazine for NeoConservatives. So this is who we are really battling and they are vehemently opposed to Ron Paul.

Here is just one recent piece: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/13...eoconservatism

----------


## wgadget

> Haha...Hannity is bringing out the neocon "big guns"...in Jeffrey Lord.  This guy got shamed a few months who by Tom Woods.


Hey, TOM!  Incoming....

----------


## JCF

Talking to Romney:

"If there's one candidate that hasn't been vetted it's Ron Paul, because there's a lot of things about him that scares the living daylights out of me."

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Says Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't been vetted, and he scares Hannity.

----------


## Johncjackson

> I don't think Ron knows who wrote them.  He was totally not involved for some time.


He was the president of the company and had his name on them. As bad as it sounds if he did write it ( which he didn't), it might sound worse to say he was running a business and publishing a newsletter printed by the company owned by his long time campaign manager with his family members and long time associates on the board, yet he had no idea who was working for his business. He knows who wrote them- he's just not going to throw anyone else under the bus.

----------


## sailingaway

> It isn't. Can you think of any time in your life when someone wronged you and you would have been satisfied with, "I take moral responsibility for it?" Need to hear those words, "I'm sorry," in my opinion.


Too many people have too many opinions on what the perfect words are.  He has issued a variety of statements. Pick your favorite, but he can't chase everyone's perfect phrasing.  In addition, in my experience people demanding these 'proofs' aren't really swayable, their intent is to keep the issue open, is all.  

I looked at this issue myself first before becoming a supporter and it pops like a bubble.  There is nothing there.  Those who dislike Ron grasp it fiercely and won't let go because it is the only speck there is.

----------


## Liberty74

> I'm sure Hannity got the word from above to cancel the interview with Ron since the plan is now to trash him as hard as possible. I fully expect the debate tomorrow to be absolutely absurd and dirty.


The establishment and statists are wetting their pants after the recent polling data. Hopefully Paul and the campaign has something up their sleeve. I honestly think Paul purposely kept a low profile during all these months to rise at the right point in time which is now. Hence, they know the attacks from the establishment will feel like WWIII. Get ready to HOLD.

----------


## iamse7en

Is it a coincidence that he's really going after Ron Paul after all these polls?

----------


## Xchange

Hannity is trolling for ratings

----------


## rgampell

Well, I wasn't going to tell the guy to shut up, but it was certainly a bizarre comeback.

I agree that he should NOT go on the defensive, even as far as he did in the last campaign.  There is really no answer that is acceptable:  either he knew and looked the other way, or he didn't know and showed "poor judgment."  Anyone who was around last time knows that these are his two choices.  Again, I really think he should just tell the truth (as he has before) and look/sound ashamed.  Any return-fire just keeps the battle going, so to speak.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Says Ron Paul is the only candidate that hasn't been vetted, and he scares Hannity.


He's going full FUD!

----------


## dmitchell

> you know, that is the kind of thing I hear from those who don't want Ron to win under any circumstances.  They just keep raising the bar on what Ron 'has to do to put it to rest'.  Apologize using their specific phrases, or give the media a goat for sacrifice in who he might guess wrote them, or something.  None of that goes to his quality as a presidential candidate.


I don't think Paul should say who wrote them, if he even knows. But I also don't think Paul needs to satisfy the media. He needs to satisfy potential voters. In my opinion, that means saying "I'm sorry," not being defensive and making some totally unconvincing comments about how it's "impossible" for a libertarian to say something racist sounding.

----------


## AlexG

> Is it a coincidence that he's really going after Ron Paul after all these polls?


Just a few weeks ago he was all buddy buddy with Ron and saying "the only thing I disagree with you on is your foreign policy." Now that Ron is going to sweep up, he's digging up old news

----------


## RonPauledbyYoutube

Has any on notice when you Google site:spectator.org ron paul jeffrey lord

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C...l+jeffrey+lord

This is the first result:




> Trump Debate Highlights Ron Paul, Romney ... - American Spectator
> spectator.org/blog/2011/12/07/trump-debate-highlights-ron-pa
> Dec 7, 2011  *Jeffery Lord| 12.7.11 @ 10:41AM. You're right! I HATE Ron Paul... plus, my boss gives me extra cash if I write smear pieces on him.* . Reply to ...


Yet when you go to the link in American Spectator blog it doesn't show anywhere. It looks like its a reply to someon else's comment. But what caught my eye is this "my boss gives me extra cash if I write smear pieces on him."

EDIT: Never mind, it is the reply to the first comment. It is a despicable comment nontheless.

----------


## trey4sports

Ron should really just shake this $#@! off. We didn't need Hannity then and we dont need him now.

----------


## sailingaway

It was ten sentences by someone else, over the course of a decade, over twenty years ago.  This is demogoguery of the precise sort Ron does not do ---PERSONALLY attacking people rather than sticking to issues.  Just another reason he is better than his opposition.

----------


## JohnGalt23g

> Talking to Romney:
> 
> "If there's one candidate that hasn't been vetted it's Ron Paul, because there's a lot of things about him that scares the living daylights out of me."


Someone should remind Sean that children are easily frightened.

Great Americans?  Not so easily.

----------


## Liberty74

> Just a few weeks ago he was all buddy buddy with Ron and saying "the only thing I disagree with you on is your foreign policy." Now that Ron is going to sweep up, he's digging up old news


Exactly! Goes to show Hannity is a SHILL.

----------


## Johncjackson

> He didn't write them.  That is all people need to know. He didn't write or approve those handful of statements over 10 years, and they don't sound remotely like him, and he has a thirty year youtube library anyone can dip into to prove that to themselves.


I think that's fine and convincing for people who are more familiar with his history. However, when it comes to elections, most of the voters are going to be mostly ignorant and you need the votes of the ignorant. There is no way to win only getting votes of people who are that familiar and go that in-depth for a specific candidate. He needs voters that will never post on RPF or never donate to the campaign or care about the history of the movement and all that stuff. Most people are not familiar with his style enough to be able to dismiss it, and he was the head of the company for all those years and everyone involved was a family member, campaign staffer, or other close associate or someone still in their circle. I don't think if Gingrich said he didn't know about all the payments his company received from Freddie Mac and healthcare orgs because he was too busy giving speeches and let others handle his business with little oversight, that would fly with us, would it?

That's just my opinion and thoughts on the politics of it. I respect your opinions.

----------


## Carole

So he is talking with Romney and comes back after the break. While Romney is still on the air with him, Hannity remarks about Dr. Paul to audience the newsletters and lots of other scary things about Dr. Paul. Then he continues his conservation with Romney. 

What a piece of stuff he is.

----------


## Publicani

> Too many people have too many opinions on what the perfect words are.  He has issued a variety of statements. Pick your favorite, but he can't chase everyone's perfect phrasing.  In addition, in my experience people demanding these 'proofs' aren't really swayable, their intent is to keep the issue open, is all.  
> 
> I looked at this issue myself first before becoming a supporter and it pops like a bubble.  There is nothing there.  Those who dislike Ron grasp it fiercely and won't let go because it is the only speck there is.


well put.

----------


## Inkblots

> It was ten sentences by someone else, over the course of a decade, over twenty years ago.


Actually, it was over 5 years, 1989 to 1994.  Not coincidentally, that was the same period when Paul had left politics in disgust to return to practicing medicine.  I'm not at all surprised he wasn't paying attention to his old newsletters during that time - he had left politics!

----------


## rich34

Ron needs to somehow run out the clock.  I'm not sure how or if it's even possible, but he needs to answer the questions quickly and move onto somthing else.  If this starts to gain traction then it's time to bring Rand out as a distraction.

----------


## JCF

He's done with Romney, newsletters (most likely) up next.

----------


## sailingaway

> I think that's fine and convincing for people who are more familiar with his history. However, when it comes to elections, most of the voters are going to be mostly ignorant and you need the votes of the ignorant. There is no way to win only getting votes of people who are that familiar and go that in-depth for a specific candidate. He needs voters that will never post on RPF or never donate to the campaign or care about the history of the movement and all that stuff. Most people are not familiar with his style enough to be able to dismiss it, and he was the head of the company for all those years and everyone involved was a family member, campaign staffer, or other close associate or someone still in their circle. I don't think if Gingrich said he didn't know about all the payments his company received from Freddie Mac and healthcare orgs because he was too busy giving speeches and let others handle his business with little oversight, that would fly with us, would it?
> 
> That's just my opinion and thoughts on the politics of it. I respect your opinions.


If you know that much you know it was never HIS business.  His business at the time was practicing medicine full time.  An ex staffer and friend was let to run a newsletter with his name.  In the persona of it being 'his' newsletter, his image was all over it.   I'm sure he now regrets not overseeing it better, but it was ten unpleasant statements by some volunteer, not theft or murder we are talking about.  Had HE written them it would be a character issue, however.  But he didn't.

----------


## Give me liberty

> So he is talking with Romney and comes back after the break. While Romney is still on the air with him, Hannity remarks about Dr. Paul to audience the newsletters and lots of other scary things about Dr. Paul. Then he continues his conservation with Romney. 
> 
> What a piece of stuff he is.


He will do anything for the rathings his down to 20% precent or so.

----------


## dmitchell

Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).

----------


## Give me liberty

> He's done with Romney, newsletters (most likely) up next.


newsletters? i doubt it.

----------


## Johncjackson

> Yeah. There isn't a shred of evidence. All we have is claims from long time enemies of Ron Paul at Reason.


Not true. Speculation also comes from people who worked with those involved, other libertarians, and long time FRIENDS of Ron Paul in the libertarian movement, People who were around in the 70s, 80s- present. It is known that Lew Rockwell, Tucker, and some others worked on the newsletters and that mark Elam's company printed them. Thats fact. It is public record. it is not known what writers wrote what exactly, for a fact, because they were all published under the name of Ron Paul. It wasn't like it was a journal or magazine that had author bylines ( This story is by Rockwell, that story is by Rothbard, this is by an intern, and so on). "Ron Paul" wrote them, as that's who is credited, but can't have it both ways. Ron Paul, the human being did not write them.

Also, Rockwell/Rothbard did write statist, racist material under their own names during that time. So just saying that someone is a libertarian individualist, and that somehow makes it impossible is not logical, because obviously self-described libertarians have written material supporting the police state and racist policies ( which goes beyond repugnant personal views). I don't think Rockwell would support some of the stuff he wrote 20 years ago, either. So I'm not saying he is a bad guy now.

----------


## Inkblots

> Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).


Don't think they won't combine them.  I'm sure Lord will claim Paul's foreign policy is based on anti-semitism or some stupid ploy like that.

----------


## Steve-in-NY

I will no longer mention this statists name nor watch/buy/listen to his shows books etc.

----------


## RP Supporter

I cannot believe people care about the damn newsletters. Iowa's 99% white, and New Hampshire's not far behind. The only people who will give  a damn about this sort of thing are the PC liberals who surprise surprise, don't vote in the Republican primary. 

And again, Hannity himself has come close to the dog whistle a few times with Obama. Let's pull some of his quotes from 20 years ago. (I know, for example, that he was far more critical of homosexuals back then. Now he claims he's libertarian on the issue. Tut tut Sean. How inappropriate.)

----------


## JCF

> newsletters? i doubt it.


You're right. Next hour.

---

Attacking Ron Paul on 3rd party, saying that his (Paul's) campaigns staff didn't want Hannity to bring up the 3rd party question so Hannity didn't let him on the program.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron needs to somehow run out the clock.  I'm not sure how or if it's even possible, but he needs to answer the questions quickly and move onto somthing else.  If this starts to gain traction then it's time to bring Rand out as a distraction.


He just has to say 'this is the situation, this is my answer, if you can't vote for me because of my lack of oversight here, that is certainly your right'.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

He said he canceled because Ron Paul campaign didn't want Hannity to ask about 3rd party.

----------


## AlexG

> He said he canceled because Ron Paul campaign didn't want Hannity to ask about 3rd party.


source?

----------


## ShaneEnochs

"We'll let Ron Paul back on the program, but there are things troubling about his background that we'll get into in the next hour"

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> source?


Himself?

----------


## sailingaway

> Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).


no, Levin is apparently the one who sold Hannity on this bill of goods. Levin's thing is also foreign policy. However, everyone knows Ron's foreign policy so now they are going to try to say there is a character issue.

----------


## JCF

> source?


Hannity said just that.

----------


## Lord Xar

> Actually, it was over 5 years, 1989 to 1994.  Not coincidentally, that was the same period when Paul had left politics in disgust to return to practicing medicine.  I'm not at all surprised he wasn't paying attention to his old newsletters during that time - he had left politics!


If this time period validation is real, then I would say this is a very poweful argument in favour of Ron Paul. We need to remember this and perhaps have the campaign acknowledge that Ron Paul wasn't even in politics at the time, and was running his personal business SERVING minorities!!!

----------


## iamse7en

> Himself?


lol he just said it.

----------


## RonPaulCult

Producer called out Hannity on lying about the Ron Paul campaign.

----------


## AlexG

Nevermind, Sean Hannity just said he cancelled the interview because the Paul campaign didnt want Hannity to ask about 3rd party run

----------


## ord33

> Well Jeff Lord sucks but Lord is hung up on foreign policy, not newsletters from the 1990s. So that's what this will probably be about (foreign policy).


He's even complaining about Daily Paul and their words about Lord's buddy Mark Levin: http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27...ul-anti-semiti

----------


## cary

> ... what does this mean: We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."


Ron could reply by asking his interrogator if Jesse Jackson and Juan Williams are racist:  

Jesse Jackson::

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

Juan Williams:

"Let me just tell you, with the amount of black on black crime in America, I get nervous and I'm a black man."

----------


## dmitchell

> Too many people have too many opinions on what the perfect words are.  He has issued a variety of statements. Pick your favorite, but he can't chase everyone's perfect phrasing.  In addition, in my experience people demanding these 'proofs' aren't really swayable, their intent is to keep the issue open, is all.


I'm sure that's true of some people. However, I don't think believing that an apology should contain the words "I'm sorry" is really a case of of "too may opinions on what the perfect words are." That's pretty standard for apologies, no?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> "We'll let Ron Paul back on the program, but there are things troubling about his background that we'll get into in the next hour"


FUD, commercials, FUD, commercials, FUD,...

----------


## Maverick

> He said he canceled because Ron Paul campaign didn't want Hannity to ask about 3rd party.


Heard that as well.

Then he said something like "Linda's shaking her head...that's not....yeah, I know that's not quite how it was said, but they said 'we've been asked that question enough and we don't have any new information in that regard' and I said 'NO! I'm not playing that game, I won't be dictated to blah blah blah...'"

----------


## Havax

Let's throw snowballs at Hannity again next time we see him. He's a lost cause.

----------


## sailingaway

> "We'll let Ron Paul back on the program, but there are things troubling about his background that we'll get into in the next hour"


without him here to defend himself....

----------


## Karsten

> Nevermind, Sean Hannity just said he cancelled the interview because the Paul campaign didnt want Hannity to ask about 3rd party run


And you believe that $#@!?

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Says he's going to talk about the newsletters next.

----------


## JCF

"When we come back, the controversial past, writings and newsletters of Ron Paul." 

Talking with Jeffery Lord about it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Let's throw snowballs at Hannity again next time we see him. He's a lost cause.


no, lets not.  We'll just have to go a different route.

----------


## RonPaulCult

He said "we'll have Ron Paul back on the show"

LIAR

----------


## sailingaway

> "When we come back, the controversial past, writings and newsletters of Ron Paul." 
> 
> Talking with Jeffery Lord about it.


I can't believe he has slime like Lord and Levin on but not Ron.

----------


## Johncjackson

> It is hard to find logic in internet poison because it usually grows 'operator game style' with people recharacterizing the nonsense they heard from someone else.  So they are saying over the 10 years it ran there were a million in subscriber fees?  and there are what, 10 questionable sentences over those ten years?  So we should find out how many sentences there were in the newsletters over ten years to divide and find out the percentage of fees 'tainted' by bad content?  And then find out how much fo those subscriber fees to the independent editor actually went to Ron as a licensing fee for his name, and then apply that percentage to see how much of what went to Ron was tainted?  And then decide if he should have known in advance this would happen and as a private citizen not politician should have protected himself?
> 
> I find that argument in the 'don't feed the trolls' category.


$1 million was actually the 1 year revenue from the newsletter company, but that figure is slightly exaggerated.

----------


## ItsTime

why even listen? Just wait for the tube.

----------


## RonPaulCult

This is an impressive hit piece.  Well done propaganda machine.  Well done.

----------


## mullenium

oh gawd.. here we go with the newsletter BS

----------


## dmitchell

Guess I was wrong. It's going to be the newsletters.

----------


## AlexG

> why even listen? Just wait for the tube.


yea i didnt realize how many commercials radio shows have. no wonder podcasts and youtube are so popular

----------


## Maverick

I don't doubt that the campaign said something like "C'mon Sean, we've been asked the 3rd party question enough already and it's always the same answer, just let it go." And then Hannity decides to use that as cover for a convenient excuse to cancel the interview, but the _real_ reason he canceled is that he got orders to attack and he doesn't have the balls to attack RP in person.

----------


## sailingaway

You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer.  It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause.  But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...

----------


## Cowlesy

Haha, I even fired up Sirius.  Apparently Sean is going on the attack in a few minutes.

Doesn't even have Ron on to respond.  So one sided.  Love how they roll this out when Ron gains steam.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

You all had to expect this to happen, it is pretty much the only crap they can dig on him. Soon as he rises in the polls they will find something to smear him with.

----------


## Cowlesy

> You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer.  It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause.  But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...


Thanks, Mom!

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't doubt that the campaign said something like "C'mon Sean, we've been asked the 3rd party question enough already and it's always the same answer, just let it go." And then Hannity decides to use that as cover for a convenient excuse to cancel the interview, but the _real_ reason he canceled is that he got orders to attack and he doesn't have the balls to attack RP in person.


It isn't that, he knows Ron would have a response and then there would be no time for the story to get ahead of Ron's answer.  Real journalists ask for a response from the other side before making allegations.

----------


## unknown

> "When we come back, the controversial past, writings and newsletters of Ron Paul." 
> 
> Talking with Jeffery Lord about it.


From the American Spectator?  The site seems to be pro-Newt.

----------


## svobody

the racist card is such a liberal media play. ron needs to call it what it is

----------


## Johncjackson

> you know, that is the kind of thing I hear from those who don't want Ron to win under any circumstances.  They just keep raising the bar on what Ron 'has to do to put it to rest'.  Apologize using their specific phrases, or give the media a goat for sacrifice in who he might guess wrote them, or something.  None of that goes to his quality as a presidential candidate.


Actually, a lot of people who want Ron to win just think it should be handled differently and think it hurts his chances to win if he doesn't, and possibly helps others at Paul's expense. How to handle dirt and oppo research is just part of politics and winning isn't some pure pursuit.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer.  It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause.  But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...


This is good motivation for all of us to keep working hard.

----------


## sailingaway

> $1 million was actually the 1 year revenue from the newsletter company, but that figure is slightly exaggerated.


regardless, that won't have been Ron's take, but it doesn't matter if it was 20 million.  It is still a matter of not peering over the shoulders of independent management to see if a volunteer used cheap rhetoric, not a venial sin.

----------


## Jtorsella

Here's hoping we're overreacting and Hannity is ambiguous.

----------


## kylejack

3 hours a day, that's all he asks.

----------


## Maverick

Earlier when interviewing Romney, Hannity said:

"You know, I'm glad that _all_ of these Republican candidates are being vetted so thoroughly, it's really good for the process I think. Though, the only candidate that hasn't been vetted at all is...*Ron Paul*."

He's been having fun all day dropping in the hints and segueways, and pretending like he's shocked and he's never heard of these newsletters before today.

----------


## Captain America

It shows that he doesn't understand free market economics. How there is no race laws in a free market society. He is fishing, I do not believe people will take the bait. Hannity should be ashamed of himself. He calls himself a Christian and lies to America. He calls himself a Conservative when the only "conservative" thing is the war policy of death. WWJD, Sean?

----------


## 69360

I turned it on. I don't think it's going to be that bad.

----------


## ord33

Great...Right at the peak 5:00 drive time when people get off work and are in their cars.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> I turned it on. I don't think it's going to be that bad.


I predict it's going to be FILLED with lies.

----------


## unknown

Im in the middle of making phone bank calls, now I gotta listen to this jackA$$.

----------


## Liberty74

> Nevermind, Sean Hannity just said he cancelled the interview because the Paul campaign didnt want Hannity to ask about 3rd party run


I know I am going to get slammed for this but if the establishment and the statists derail Paul's campaign with smear tactics, HELL will be paid when Paul does run as an Independent. I'm just saying...

----------


## Tod

> Just teased it on his radio show after interviewing newt.  Looks like he'll be doing it in the next 10 minutes.  
> 
> Here's the live feed if you want to hear the garbage.  
> 
> http://player.streamtheworld.com/_pl...adel/?sid=5864
> 
> EDIT:  He keeps teasing this but he hasn't done the segment yet.  My best estimate would be around 4:30 ET now (looks like he'll interview Mitt first).


That is one reason I almost NEVER listen to Hannity.  If you edited out the time he spends talking about what is coming up next, his show would probably only be about 20 min long.

----------


## JCF

He's on now with Jeff Lord.

----------


## 69360

He's probably just trolling us all for ratings.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Alright guys, here it is.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

> Great...Right at the peak 5:00 drive time when people get off work and are in their cars.


Yep...you gotta admit they are masters when it comes to all the tactics, they think of everything.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Great...Right at the peak 5:00 drive time when people get off work and are in their cars.


I thought about that too.  I don't think that's a coincidence.

----------


## unknown

I think its going to be diffiuclt to paint Ron Paul as a racist when he was the only Republican candidate who opposed racial profiling...

----------


## Inkblots

> If this time period validation is real, then I would say this is a very poweful argument in favour of Ron Paul. We need to remember this and perhaps have the campaign acknowledge that Ron Paul wasn't even in politics at the time, and was running his personal business SERVING minorities!!!


It's true.  From Reason magazine: "During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994".
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/1...uls-newsletter

----------


## Cowlesy

ROFLMAO, Jeffrey Lord is on for the interview???
hilarious!!

----------


## Canderson

At least hes not saving it for closer to the caucus

----------


## RonPaulCult

> I know I am going to get slammed for this but if the establishment and the statists derail Paul's campaign with smear tactics, HELL will be paid when Paul does run as an Independent. I'm just saying...


The sad thing is, the establishment could care less if Obama gets another four years.  They would love it actually.

----------


## JCF

Discussing Ron's Foreign Policy, Jeff Lord's Neo-Liberal Article.

Bringing up Anti-Antisemitism/Non-Interventionism. 

Talking about Tom Woods and how he's wrong.

----------


## Give me liberty

> I think its going to be diffiuclt to paint Ron Paul as a racist when he was the only Republican candidate who opposed racial profiling...


Thats true and Sean hannity attack fails can anyone call Hannity and remind him on that one?

----------


## sailingaway

> I know I am going to get slammed for this but if the establishment and the statists derail Paul's campaign with smear tactics, HELL will be paid when Paul does run as an Independent. I'm just saying...


He doesn't remotely have to run. If Fox and the GOP don't treat him fairly, they will lose the general election.

Ron doesn't have to win the nomination, but he needs to rise or fall on an even playing field.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Lord: Ron Paul's foreign policy is anti-semetistic.  Tom Woods beat me up.

----------


## Andrew Ryan

Is it normal to feel dumber while listening to this?

----------


## Johncjackson

> Thats all?  Are you saying that isn't true?


I'm an individualist. So no, I am not afraid of black men. Can't have it both ways- Can't say " I'm a libertarian individualist, not racist by definition" and then practice race-baiting identity politics- which the Newsletters and Rothbard/Rockwell strategy were a deliberate attempt. They attempted to play on white fears for political gain. A lot of people here endlessly complaining about "playing the race card" if it's not fearful whites doing it. Well guess what? The Paleo-whatever you want to call it wannabe movement of the late 80s- early 90s that included Paul's newsletters, the Rothbard/Rockwell writings ( that are very similar to the Paul newsletters) and the support of Pat Buchanan were all attempts at playing the race card. And the attempts to weasel out of it are downright Gingrichian.

----------


## BLS

> I know I am going to get slammed for this but if the establishment and the statists derail Paul's campaign with smear tactics, HELL will be paid when Paul does run as an Independent. I'm just saying...


I think we should do it JUST to show them they can't win without us.  Tell em if they don't support us, we'll guarantee Obama a new 4 years.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Hannity whining about being called a statist.

----------


## StateofTrance

Listen live: http://www.freedom970.com/pages/stream_player

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is it normal to feel dumber while listening to this?


Very normal.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm an individualist. So no, I am not afraid of black men. Can't have it both ways- Can't say " I'm a libertarian individualist, not racist by definition" and then practice race-baiting identity politics- which the Newsletters and Rothbard/Rockwell strategy were a deliberate attempt. They attempted to play on white fears for political gain. A lot of people here endlessly complaining about "playing the race card" if it's not fearful whites doing it. Well guess what? The Paleo-whatever you want to call it wannabe movement of the late 80s- early 90s that included Paul's newsletters, the Rothbard/Rockwell writings ( that are very similar to the Paul newsletters) and the support of Pat Buchanan were all attempts at playing the race card. And the attempts to weasel out of it are downright Gingrichian.


And you know well Ron never backed that sort of approach whatever Rockwell or Rothbard did, and if you were really an individualist you would quit trying to pin the actions of different individuals to him. Don't fight your libertarian internecine grievances with Rockwell or Rothbard on Ron's body and campaign.

----------


## Maverick

I know that we know that the media already knows all about this. We know they've just been witholding it. But they never let on that they know. Even about something that's been out since 4 years ago. They always act like they just dug it up and it's such a "huge surprise" etc. Hannity is saying "I can't believe the MSM hasn't brought this up yet, Ron Paul is almost to the top, and nobody is talking about this" like he just found out about this $#@! today. It's completely calculated. Hannity thought he'd get to ignore Ron Paul, and now he can't, so he's had the strategic reserve in the tank for 4 years for the moment that Ron Paul started to make the climb in the polls but he pretends like he just found out about this $#@! today.

----------


## Give me liberty

> Lord: Ron Paul's foreign policy is anti-semetistic.  Tom Woods beat me up.


Sadly That lord doesnt know the difference and doesnt what anti-semetistic is.

----------


## amonasro

What the hell is Lord talking about? This is going to fly right over Hannity listeners' heads.

----------


## JCF

Attacking Ron on his condemning of Reagan.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Lord: Ron Paul said he was done with Ronald Reagan.

----------


## Liberty74

> I think its going to be diffiuclt to paint Ron Paul as a racist when he was the only Republican candidate who opposed racial profiling...


Sean "scares" me. Has he been vetted???

Seriously, I bet you a million dollars that Sean cannot point to anything Paul has said that was racist much less voted for such.

----------


## 69360

nothing bad yet

----------


## kylejack

LMAO, guest is referring to William F Buckley and Mark Levin in the same sentence. Absurd.

----------


## StateofTrance

http://www.freedom970.com/pages/stream_player

----------


## PastaRocket848

oh no... ron hates reagan.  it's all over.  let's just go home.

----------


## JCF

Lord saying antisemitism is tied to Ron Paul through his supporters, because of what people on the internet say about Jews (Levin).

----------


## randomname

> Heard that as well.
> 
> Then he said something like "Linda's shaking her head...that's not....yeah, I know that's not quite how it was said, but they said 'we've been asked that question enough and we don't have any new information in that regard' and I said 'NO! I'm not playing that game, I won't be dictated to blah blah blah...'"


Might they have played it like that with  Blitzer as well? Must be the first time he wasnt asked about 3rd party

----------


## Havax

This isn't that bad. Any rational thinker will see right through this bull$#@!. They've tried this already.

----------


## jabf2006

> Is it normal to feel dumber while listening to this?


You have to lower your intelligence in an attempt to follow their disconnected logic and..well..their lies.

----------


## Dorfsmith

Hannity's listeners have no clue what this guy is talking about. He sounds very unconvincing.

----------


## amonasro

Lord: Paul supporters attack Levin because he's Jewish.

----------


## unknown

He cant even lie without his throat drying out.

----------


## 69360

We are all jew haters, come on...

----------


## sailingaway

> Lord saying antisemitism is tied to Ron Paul through his supporters, because of what people on the internet say about Jews (Levin).


So, do they admit Ron didn't write or ever say anything like the newsletters himself or do they pretend he wrote them?

----------


## kylejack

He's now talking about anti-semitism about Levin. And he is not stating what website he saw that on. Just "certain websites."

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Lord is saying that we've NEVER had a non-interventionist policy.

----------


## Karsten

$#@! you, Hannity!

----------


## Give me liberty

> Lord: Paul supporters attack Levin because he's Jewish.


Huh no thats not the reason Lord.

----------


## sailingaway

> He cant even lie without his throat drying out.


that will make his future pronouncements brief.  A blessing.

----------


## JCF

> So, do they admit Ron didn't write or ever say anything like the newsletters himself or do they pretend he wrote them?


They're talking about Foreign Policy, he said they're going to talk about the newsletters "a bit later."

----------


## WD-NY

> You know what has just happened, dont you? Everyone watching this thread has just missed Ron giving a killer interview on CNN to Wolf Blitzer.  It is over now, so you might as well continue to take one for the cause.  But you will want to see it to take the taste of this out of your mouths...


The way the campaign is being run this go around, whose to say that Ron doesn't turn this "controversy" into a big opportunity. All he would need to do is get serious and address the issue in a FORMAL SPEECH! 

With Rand & Doug Wead's help, I'm pretty confident his response would be nothing short of epic (and seriously "presidential" ) 

Obama was able to spin the Rev. Wright controversy into a pretty big win... so my question is, why can't Ron do the same? He's an amazing writer and actually gives a pretty great speech when reading from prepared text. 

Google "Obama race speech" or just visit this NYTimes 'interactive feature' on it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...A_GRAPHIC.html

is no less eloquent or hold a press conference

----------


## kylejack

"Isolationism"

----------


## amonasro

Man they are grasping at straws. It comes off as desperate and is unconvincing.

Churchill? WWII? The history of isolationism? Hitler? What? Nobody cares.

----------


## seyferjm

How pathetic! What a sleazebags Hannity and Lord are.

----------


## Give me liberty

Now onto Iran typical

----------


## sailingaway

> Lord is saying that we've NEVER had a non-interventionist policy.


So we're back to his real problem with Ron?  Which should have been all they were discussing instead of pretending they think he is anti semitic or racist, all along?

----------


## PastaRocket848

lol just said the founders were interventionists because alexander hamilton was.

----------


## Dreamofunity

This guy is a douche.

----------


## Havax

You can tell this is coming from Levin. Hannity was warming up to Ron for a while. Levin definitely talked to Hannity and steered him away and now it's all-out.

----------


## Maverick

So far, pretty ho-hum.

Attacks so far:
1. Ron disillusioned with Reagan in the '80s. *yawn*
2. Trashing foreign policy (never heard that before )

----------


## kylejack

The guest is now endorsing the Mexican-American War. Ahahahaha, that was one of the worst landgrabs ever.

----------


## Give me liberty

> Lord is saying that we've NEVER had a non-interventionist policy.


OH NO? WHAT ABOUT WW1? If i recall Canada played a major role our country stayed out of it until the end.

----------


## Maverick

Oh, now here's #3.

----------


## 69360

This is all weak and forgettable so far.

----------


## unknown

WOW.

Non-interventionism = antisemitism.

Wow wow wow.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Hannity reading the newsletter.

----------


## sailingaway

> The way the campaign is being run this go around, whose to say that Ron doesn't turn this "controversy" into a big opportunity. All he would need to do is get serious and address the issue in a FORMAL SPEECH! 
> 
> With Rand & Doug Wead's help, I'm pretty confident his response would be nothing short of epic (and seriously "presidential" ) 
> 
> Obama was able to spin the Rev. Wright controversy into a pretty big win... so my question is, why can't Ron do the same? He's an amazing writer and actually gives a pretty great speech when reading from prepared text. 
> 
> Google "Obama race speech" or just visit this NYTimes 'interactive feature' on it: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...A_GRAPHIC.html
> 
> is no less eloquent or hold a press conference


I think Obama's Wright speech was a joke to all of conservative America and every Ron Paul supporter I know thought he was pandering.  Ron doesn't pander.

----------


## JCF

"He claims he didn't know anything about his own newsletters."

Quoting the LA comment about welfare checks.

----------


## Publicani

I am beginning to regret that Rand comes on Hannity's show.

----------


## amonasro

Lord admits he never read the newsletters.

----------


## sailingaway

> Hannity reading the newsletter.


did he mention Ron didn't write these?

----------


## unknown

WTH is he talking about?  Japan attacked us and we declared war...

----------


## kylejack

Newsletters now. "Very disturbing things"

----------


## Liberty74

> This isn't that bad. Any rational thinker will see right through this bull$#@!. They've tried this already.


I am not listening and I will will never listen to *Hannity, the establishment shill*, again. But you have to understand the most voters are sheep and cattle. Wilson called them "mass tools" for a reason. This is who Lord, Levin and Hannity are targeting. It's called herding.

----------


## Maverick

Hannity just asked Lord "have you read these newsletters?"

Lord: "*No*, but I've heard about them..."

lol, really? Interviewing a guy that you're gonna parade about as an "expert" on this topic...._and he hasn't read the damn things???_

----------


## Give me liberty

> WOW.
> 
> Non-interventionism = antisemitism.
> 
> Wow wow wow.


Thats a new one to so Bombing Serbs is fine to then? since that isnt antisemitism

----------


## JCF

> did he mention Ron didn't write these?


He only said that Ron claims he didn't.

----------


## kylejack

Guest says "he worked with Lew Rockwell on these"
Hannity: "He claims he had no idea who wrote these"

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Lord is saying that we brought this on Ron because we said that Ron Paul doesn't get enough attention.  He's blaming anything Ron gets on his supporters.

----------


## sailingaway

> "He claims he didn't know anything about his own newsletters."
> 
> Quoting the LA comment about welfare checks.


OK. then at least they mention he says he didn't write them even if they aren't letting him defend himself and have three champions of neoconservative foreign policy trashing him at once.

----------


## Epic

Starting newsletter stuff...

Hannity says Ron Paul totally disowned it... that's true...

Repeats welfare checks line.  

Hannity says Ron Paul needs an anal exam (wtf)

Hannity says this should be vetted by media (uh it already was last campaign... this is a "known")

Both Lord and Hannity say that Ron Paul could do very well, or win, Iowa.

Lord: Iowa likes pacifists and isolationists!

----------


## Liberty74

> This guy is a douche.


Dick douche more like it.

----------


## Give me liberty

> Newsletters now. "Very disturbing things"


Yeah for a radio talk show host who wants his rathings back thats why i hate hannity.

----------


## unknown

"Talk show hosts supporting Ron Paul as a third party" = Glenn Beck.

----------


## sailingaway

> Lord is saying that we brought this on Ron because we said that Ron Paul doesn't get enough attention.  He's blaming anything Ron gets on his supporters.


that's nice.  Ron loves us and we love him.  No wedges there.

----------


## kylejack

"Order was restored when blacks picked up their welfare checks"
"I know Paul people will get upset, but every other candidate has had an anal exam about their history, be it affairs, Perry's brain freezes, then Ron Paul should be analyzed too"

----------


## Maverick

Damn, Hannity and Lord insulting Iowa yet again.

Called Iowa "isolationist."

Way to bring the electorate to your side, idiots.

----------


## Captain America

ha! they have nothing. only lying about him being racist and calling it isolation other than non-intervention

----------


## SchleckBros

Shawn we attack their VOTING RECORD. You sir can't attack his voting record. You sir have to grasp at straws and claim he is a racist and an anti-semite.

----------


## 69360

Honestly it isn't that bad

----------


## Tunink

So in other words this interview is a laughable joke, grasping at straws, and muck slinging hoping something sticks?

----------


## kylejack

They are making somewhat of a good point that Ron Paul gets scrutiny along with positive press as he moves to frontrunner status.

----------


## svobody

Rand should never go on hannity again, or if he does, it better be to rip him a new $#@! where his face currently is

----------


## Havax

How hilarious. They are just railing against his isolationism and sprinkling in talks about the newsletters. It's blatantly obvious they just hate his foreign policy and will stop at nothing to get people to vote the other way.

----------


## iamse7en

It's not as bad as I thought, but this whole idea that Ron hasn't been vetted is ridiculous. He's been around for 40 years. He's run for President twice already. These newsletters have been addressed already before.

He hasn't been vetted before?! Sean is an idiot.

----------


## unknown

Did he just say antisemitic again?

----------


## sailingaway

> WOW.
> 
> Non-interventionism = antisemitism.
> 
> Wow wow wow.


whatshisface , Ben Stein? said that to Ron on Larry King last year, it was the most amazing thing. I guess they are trying it out in public.

----------


## Give me liberty

> Damn, Hannity and Lord insulting Iowa yet again.
> 
> Called Iowa "isolationist."
> 
> Way to bring the electorate to your side, idiots.


This wont help sean hannity rathings at all, i would love if everyone here would call Sean hannity on this.

----------


## specsaregood

> lol just said the founders were interventionists because alexander hamilton was.


Hamilton was the son of a whore..... and was probably a trick baby.  just throwing that out there.

----------


## pao

Does that include Paul's eventual win as well?


> Lord is saying that we brought this on Ron because we said that Ron Paul doesn't get enough attention.  He's blaming anything Ron gets on his supporters.

----------


## coastie

OMG, I already can't wait for Tom Wood's response to this, lord has mentioned him numerous times.


Hannity just said "why has nobody in the media addressed these"

Because it's already been addressed, fuggin idiot.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Lord says Hannity hasn't taken sides ROFLMGDAO

----------


## Publicani

paraphrasing: "Paul could win Iowa, because they are all antisemitic pacifist in there."

----------


## kylejack

Something from the letters about "teary-eyed left wing blacks"

Guest says that racism is leftist.

----------


## unknown

If he hates Progressives, how can he support Newt?

----------


## ShaneEnochs

Hannity said that he's going to invite him on tomorrow.

----------


## JCF

"We'll invite [Ron Paul] On the program tomorrow."

----------


## sailingaway

> It's not as bad as I thought, but this whole idea that Ron hasn't been vetted is ridiculous. He's been around for 40 years. He's run for President twice already. These newsletters have been addressed already before.
> 
> He hasn't been vetted before?! Sean is an idiot.


Sean is trying to plant in the mind of Iowa voters that 'there might be all kinds of stuff' that can still come out about Ron. 

Nope, or they wouldn't be grasping so hard at the newsletters someone else wrote.

----------


## Liberty74

> Starting newsletter stuff...
> Hannity says Ron Paul needs an anal exam (wtf)


Hannity is a homophobic. That totally was a gay slur. Own it you shill. 

God this stuff is too easy.

----------


## unknown

Hannity hasnt taken sides?!?!?  Bwahahahahahaha

----------


## kylejack

Guest says newsletters haven't been discussed much this cycle because people didn't take Paul seriously yet. I agree with that.

----------


## sailingaway

> "We'll invite [Ron Paul] On the program tomorrow."


So you all can have a 24 hour period to spread our smut before he has a chance to defend himself...

----------


## Matthew Zak

> Rand should never go on hannity again, or if he does, it better be to rip him a new $#@! where his face currently is


I thought that WAS his $#@!?

----------


## Cowlesy

Hannity is absolutely right in that all these candidates have basically gotten rectal exams, and it shouldn't be any different for Ron Paul.  I'm fine with that.  They're inviting Ron on tomorrow to respond.  Hope he does.

Jeffrey Lord has a huge bias against Ron.  It'd be like having DH0rowitz on.

----------


## sailingaway

> Guest says newsletters haven't been discussed much this cycle because people didn't take Paul seriously yet. I agree with that.


sure, if that is all they said, but not the rest.

----------


## Maverick

Hannity: "WHY HASN'T RON PAUL BEEN EXAMINED LIKE ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES????"

Lord: "I think a lot of people knew about it, but they haven't said anything cause they've been underestimating him."

LOLOLOLOLOL. Lord actually highlighted the MSM plan point-blank.

----------


## Havax

So they say Ron's views come from left-wing KKK members who are progressives, then tout his plan to cut $1 trillion out of the budget? Can't make this stuff up.

----------


## kill the banks

yes relax this is all so ho hum frankly ... today on fox cnn TV Ron hit ball out of park ... comments were generally great even correction on isolationist in forceful way

----------


## kylejack

Regarding not coming on: "We had a little bit of an issue today, but we discussed it with him and he's willing to come on, maybe tomorrow."

----------


## Kords21

That was a pretty weak and pretty disjointed attack. Wonder what Sean thinks of Newt saying FDR was the greatest 20th century POTUS. That's a slap in the face to this hero Reagan. At the end of the day people like Hannity and this Lord guy just want to bomb other countries to feel better about themselves.

----------


## cucucachu0000

he wasnted vetted because he was being ignored.

----------


## 69360

It's over and it wasn't the end of the world. Nothing new brought up. Nobody will care.

----------


## unknown

Im going on the attack as well.  Back to the phone bank.  Lets do this.

----------


## Give me liberty

> paraphrasing: "Paul could win Iowa, because they are all antisemitic pacifist in there."


WOW WHAT A SCUMBAG did he really said that?

----------


## kylejack

This segment was actually pretty tame. They only quoted about two or three things from the newsletters, and it was bad stuff, but it wasn't the worst stuff. We knew this was coming, or I did at least, so let's just cope with it as best we can.

----------


## Publicani

He invited Ron Paul for tomorrow show. I think it'll be stupid for the campaign to send RP before the debate to this show.

----------


## sailingaway

> paraphrasing: "Paul could win Iowa, because they are all antisemitic pacifist in there."


there, you gol.... croon those sweet nothings to Iowa.....

----------


## StateofTrance

> It's over and it wasn't the end of the world. Nothing new brought up. Nobody will care.



Exactly!

----------


## Epic

lol, it's so ironic... Hannity is complaining that RP was/is being ignored.  But Hannity is/was one of the prime ignorers!

----------


## Number19

Wasn't really that bad. No worse than the way we attack Gingrich and Romney. The points brought up can easily be answered tomorrow if Ron agrees to the interview as it seems he has.. I also agree that bringing this up now is perfectly acceptable, part of the "vetting" process. This is not going to have any legs, after tomorrow.

----------


## kylejack

To Hannity's credit, it wasn't a complete condemnation, and he provided several caveats. I think he's legitimately concerned about it. All he knows is what the psychopath Levin has passed to him.

----------


## braane

> lol just said the founders were interventionists because alexander hamilton was.


Not to mention the father of the American Federal Reserve.

----------


## amonasro

Right you give endless positive coverage to Newt and Romney, yet never utter Paul's name. That's why he hasn't been vetted, idiots.

----------


## Philmanoman

Ive been real tired of this Hannity guy for a while.I honestly dont think he has many listeners left that take him seriously.

I think this movement should make sure this is Hannitys last mistake he ever makes...sink this fool now!

(lets make sure this windbag is completely ignored from here on out)

----------


## cucucachu0000

i only caught the end what are the issues he has? it sounded like he was saying he was an anti semite then saying how its liberal thing to do to use the race card.

----------


## ross11988

Really not as bad as it could of been. It will be interesting to see if Ron Paul goes on the show tomorrow.

----------


## Publicani

> WOW WHAT A SCUMBAG did he really said that?


Yes. In essence.

----------


## Give me liberty

> Im going on the attack as well.  Back to the phone bank.  Lets do this.


Do it with manners  and tell him that Lord was qutie the jerk off. And the attack wan on Iowa  wont win him his rathings i mean come on lol!

----------


## sailingaway

> He invited Ron Paul for tomorrow show. I think it'll be stupid for the campaign to send RP before the debate to this show.


Wow. I hadn't thought of that.  That it is the debate tomorrow.  So either he goes pissed to the debate after predictable coverage, AND after being made to wait until the very last moment where Hannity always puts Ron Paul related stuff to boost his ratings throughout the show, or he 'hasn't responded'.  Ron needs to be rested and upbeat for the debate.  If he can get terms, like on first thing, maybe.  Otherwise I vote he say 'thank you but Friday would be better.'

----------


## dmitchell

Basically, this was a concern troll. An attack on Ron Paul disguised as concern that... someone in the media will bring up the newsletters!

----------


## Give me liberty

> Ive been real tired of this Hannity guy for a while.I honestly dont think he has many listeners left that take him seriously.
> 
> I think this movement should make sure this is Hannitys last mistake he ever makes...sink this fool now!


Sean hannity has only 50,000 followers on a forum.

----------


## Maverick

> *Hannity is absolutely right in that all these candidates have basically gotten rectal exams, and it shouldn't be any different for Ron Paul*.  I'm fine with that.  They're inviting Ron on tomorrow to respond.  Hope he does.


I agree. I wouldn't want any double-standards. But, of course, the media loves applying double-standards to Paul.

Paul should be vetted as much as any other candidate. But Hannity's claim that Paul hasn't been vetted is patently false and he knows it. He acts like he just found this stuff out but he already knew. And this is their idea of "vetting?" A non-issue that everyone has known about for 4 years? Yeah, nice detective work there, Hannity.

----------


## Liberty74

> If he hates Progressives, how can he support Newt?


Because Sean is not a real conservative when it comes down to it. He is a fake. He is a shill for the people in charge. He plays to the right paradigm that is purposely set up i.e. left v. right only. There is no 3rd option by the globalist. 

Sean now "claims" Paul scares him. On what exactly? Yet Newt's entire life is progressive, pro NWO, pro illegal wars, anti-Constitution, the whole 9 yards and Sean has an orgasm of love for Newt. And Sean says Paul has not been vetted? What a joke Sean is.

A lot of people are extremely upset at Beck for going after Newt over at the Blaze. People are claiming they are leaving GBTV. I honestly think the stuff brewing between the real conservatives and the fake conservatives herding the fake conservative voters is about the EXPLODE into to something real. Might get nasty.

----------


## PauliticsPolitics

Yea, this whole segment was garbage.
For all the tube-mongers: No need for a tube.
Nothing exciting, nothing too bad, just garbage.

----------


## Clem Kadiddlehopper

This is the big leagues. Ron Paul is asking the citizens of the United States to elect him President. He has to be willing to take the same heat every other candidate does. 

He has to do these interviews and answer these questions. He must not allow other people to define him without responding to it. It's the kiss of death in politics.

----------


## Publicani

> Yes. In essence.


Lord, not Hannity - who didn't object.

----------


## Student Of Paulism

WTF???I just got thru to his  show and the women screening says 'are you liberal, were looking for liberals' and i said i wanted to talk about the Ron Paul news letters and it got cut off...WTF...liberals?? lol

----------


## sailingaway

> To Hannity's credit, it wasn't a complete condemnation, and he provided several caveats. I think he's legitimately concerned about it. All he knows is what the psychopath Levin has passed to him.


The problem is, Ron can't be his own champion. He needs a champion to point out the free and discount medical services he was giving to poor women of all races and religions and how that just doesn't jibe with the idea of a racist antisemitic.  Ron NEVER toots his own horn and, old school, expects the quality of his character to shine through over time.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

No doubt Newt has thousands of politically incorrect statements that could be brought up. Add to that all of the insensitive things that have been said by past associates of Newt. Is Hannity calling Newt out on those? Is he spreading unfounded fear about Newt? 

No, this is not about "vetting". This is about intentionally smearing and defaming candidates he doesn't agree with, supposedly over a single issue (Hannity's love of war).

----------


## South Park Fan

> paraphrasing: "Paul could win Iowa, because they are all antisemitic pacifist in there."


Looks like Paul has Iowa in the bag; nothing will ensure a defeat like mocking the electorate as backward hicks.

----------


## kylejack

> This is the big leagues. Ron Paul is asking the citizens of the United States to elect him President. He has to be willing to take the same heat every other candidate does. 
> 
> He has to do these interviews and answer these questions. He must not allow other people to define him without responding to it. It's the kiss of death in politics.


Absolutely. I knew we largely dodged a bullet on the newsletters last cycle mostly because we were never a threat to any other campaign. Now we're real, and we have to deal with this.

Even from Ron's side, Ron admits he made a mistake in a decade of no oversight of what was being published in his name. This is a mistake Ron made, but other candidates have a whole lot more to answer for, so we can handle this.

----------


## tfurrh

its a full on blitz.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yea, this whole segment was garbage.
> For all the tube-mongers: No need for a tube.
> Nothing exciting, nothing too bad, just garbage.


OK. 

Once again, I recommend the CNN interview.

----------


## freejack

Disgusting how Hannity gave Cain a pass on all the accusations but feels the need to 'vet' Ron for something that was disproved long ago.

----------


## Diurdi



----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Tom Woods said something about this on his facebook. He needs to call in ASAP.

----------


## Deft9

I heard Hannity's full-on offensive driving home.  Calling Ron Isolationist.  Saying the country has never minded it's own business going back to the founders.  Said if we follow Ron's policy we'd lose 4 states.  If people didn't lap up everything Hannity says it would be comical.

----------


## rich34

I think the campaign needs to get Rand involved more so now.  Hell, send him on the show and say that Ron couldn't make it due to preparing for the debate.  This is an obvious attempt at trying to derail Ron's momentum and Rand could derail their attempt, but he's got to get involved.  I was thinking they should wait until the last minute, but the attacks are going to start to come and Rand is a great speaker and well recieved from the tea party.  We can't lose this momentum that we have and then think we can get it back at the last second.  I'd try everything in my disposal to keep the momentum going and not let these scumbags derail it.  As we've seen from ALL the other candidates momentum is everything and once they lose it they can't get it back. 

PLEASE, those that are close to the campaign get Rand Paul in the game before it's to late and we are unable to regain our momentum!

----------


## Publicani

For Pet's sake, people, give me one quote from these newsletters that is racist. Not many. Just one. Please. The worst one. Specific. 
I am serious - I've read it and couldn't find anything.
I'd like to know what I missed.

----------


## Maverick

> No doubt Newt has thousands of politically incorrect statements that could be brought up. Add to that all of the insensitive things that have been said by past associates of Newt. Is Hannity calling Newt out on those? Is he spreading unfounded fear about Newt? 
> 
> No, this is not about "vetting". This is about intentionally smearing and defaming candidates he doesn't agree with, supposedly over a single issue (Hannity's love of war).


Good point.

So Hannity, when do we get to hear your "concern" over the "disturbing remarks" of each and every associate Newt or Romney has had over the last 30 years?

----------


## skyorbit

I remember reading a lot of the mlast year, and really most of it is stuff that Walter William's could have written that's taken out of context.

----------


## sailingaway

Did anyone get the tube?

----------


## Philmanoman

This is not a serious vetting attempt.No way in hell...this is dirt digging smear campaign straight up...and the problem is its not even good serious dirt.

----------


## sailingaway

> For Pet's sake, people, give me one quote from these newsletters that is racist. Not many. Just one. Please. The worst one. Specific. 
> I am serious - I've read it and couldn't find anything.
> I'd like to know what I missed.


there was something like 'we know how fleet footed young black men are' or something, and there was something negative Zionist or maybe it was homophobic.  It was literally stuff you see on message boards all the time, by people you try not to engage with too much.

----------


## Michael Landon

I want to read the newsletters.  Where are they?

- ML

----------


## Cowlesy

"I will not support Ron Paul." - Sean Hannity, just now.

"I just do not buy his excuse on the newsletters."

----------


## sailingaway

> This is not a serious vetting attempt.No way in hell...this is dirt digging smear campaign straight up...and the problem is its not even good serious dirt.


lol!

We should protest!!  Find better dirt!!!

----------


## sailingaway

> I heard Hannity's full-on offensive driving home.  Calling Ron Isolationist.  Saying the country has never minded it's own business going back to the founders.  Said if we follow Ron's policy we'd lose 4 states.  If people didn't lap up everything Hannity says it would be comical.


Is he suggesting we should PICK UP MORE states?

----------


## RonPaulCult

Hannity just said that "I do NOT believe him on the newsletters"

Calling Ron Paul a LIAR.

----------


## Dreamofunity

Hannity keeps saying how he has to stay neutral so that he can interview each candidate objectively... then outright denies the ability to even potentially support Paul. Totally objective, Hannity.

----------


## Havax

Hannity just said he cannot support Paul because he doesn't believe his rhetoric on his newsletters. You know, since Ron hasn't been consistent for 3 decades and hasn't shown any integrity or anything..

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Edit.

----------


## LatinsforPaul

Just said the only candidate that will not get his support is Paul because of the newsletters.

----------


## kylejack

> there was something like 'we know how fleet footed young black men are' or something, and there was something negative Zionist or maybe it was homophobic.  It was literally stuff you see on message boards all the time, by people you try not to engage with too much.


Yeah, and there's one that describes how to get away with murder of one of those fleet-footed blacks, something about buying an untraceable gun and stuff. Whoever wrote all the stuff was a gross gross human being.

----------


## Publicani

> I think the campaign needs to get Rand involved more so now.  Hell, send him on the show and say that Ron couldn't make it due to preparing for the debate.


That would be a mistake - Rand is too weak, sorry, too friendly. Send in Tom Woods.

----------


## Tunink

History will forget Sean Hannity ever existed. History will remember Ron Paul as the prophet of our time.

----------


## William R

Hannity all but called Ron Paul a racist .  He's such a phony

----------


## Carole

Well, this J. Lord character has dashed off several pieces about Dr. Paul. He seems to be trying associate remarks/posts made on Daily Paul for example that he disapproves of and expects Dr. Paul to repudiate blah....blah....blah....Rididulous really. But the guy is determined to attack Dr. Paul. So now Sean H. seems to have teamed up with him.

At   tention R Pl: Anti-Semitism in Your Midst
h xxp  ://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27/attention-ron-paul-anti-semiti

Wonder if he has gone to the other candidates's forums etc. online to Politically correct them as well? Zero brains this guy has and zero attention he deserves.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, this J. Lord character has dashed off several pieces about Dr. Paul. He seems to be trying associate remarks/posts made on Daily Paul for example that he disapproves of and expects Dr. Paul to repudiate blah....blah....blah....Rididulous really. But the guy is determined to attack Dr. Paul. So now Sean H. seems to have teamed up with him.
> 
> At   tention R Pl: Anti-Semitism in Your Midst
> h xxp  ://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27/attention-ron-paul-anti-semiti


why don't we pair each and every statement he finds on daily paul with a statement from Hannity forums?

----------


## Publicani

> there was something like 'we know how fleet footed young black men are' or something, and there was something negative Zionist or maybe it was homophobic.  It was literally stuff you see on message boards all the time, by people you try not to engage with too much.


exactly ... or something. to say that young black men are fast is racist?

----------


## Kords21

So, Ron Pauls' "baggage" that was vetted back in 08 should be looked at, but Newt's baggage is just ancient history and not worthy of discussion? How people can think people like Hannity have any credibility is beyond me.

----------


## Philmanoman

> lol!
> 
> We should protest!!  Find better dirt!!!


LMAO definitely not the smartest thing ive ever said.

I sure wish we could do something about hannity though...like turning him into Mr Irrelevant...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Dear god this is a long thread of crap. Did Hannity talk about the letters or not? If so can someone provide the audio or transcript (preferred)? Thank you.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeah, and there's one that describes how to get away with murder of one of those fleet-footed blacks, something about buying an untraceable gun and stuff. Whoever wrote all the stuff was a gross gross human being.


I don't remember that one.  I read what I thought was the full list.  Wow, how to murder someone, really?  That is much more beyond the pale than what I recall.  Are you sure?

----------


## kylejack

> So, Ron Pauls' "baggage" that was vetted back in 08 should be looked at, but Newt's baggage is just ancient history and not worthy of discussion? How people can think people like Hannity have any credibility is beyond me.


Not true, Newt has taken a lot of damage on Hannity for individual mandate, among other things.

----------


## ItsTime

> So, Ron Pauls' "baggage" that was vetted back in 08 should be looked at, but Newt's baggage is just ancient history and not worthy of discussion? How people can think people like Hannity have any credibility is beyond me.


How about all the racists things Newt himself has said THIS MONTH? From Mormons to Palestinians.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> At   tention R Pl: Anti-Semitism in Your Midst
> h xxp  ://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27/attention-ron-paul-anti-semiti


Lord is also the guy that got schooled by Woods after his terrible "neo-liberal" piece.

Dude just has the biggest bug up his ass about Dr. Paul.

----------


## RonPaulCult

> Dear god this is a long thread of crap. Did Hannity talk about the letters or not? If so can someone provide the audio or transcript (preferred)? Thank you.


Yep - he spent a good 20 minutes bashing Ron.  I'm sure the tube will come up sooner or later.

----------


## WD-NY

> I think Obama's Wright speech was a joke to all of conservative America and every Ron Paul supporter I know thought he was pandering.  Ron doesn't pander.


yeah, but it worked and squashed the 'controversy'. And who says Ron's speech would have to pander? My main point was just that a formal response/speech on this (or any issue that offers itself as an opportunity to 'educate' voters and spread his message) would help rather than hurt...

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Dear god this is a long thread of crap. Did Hannity talk about the letters or not? If so can someone provide the audio or transcript (preferred)? Thank you.


Yeah, said they were racist.  Said Ron Paul is lying about them and he wrote them.  Said he CANNOT vote for Ron because of them.

----------


## Give me liberty

> "I will not support Ron Paul." - Sean Hannity, just now.
> 
> "I just do not buy his excuse on the newsletters."


thats what he said?

----------


## sailingaway

> That would be a mistake - Rand is too weak, sorry, too friendly. Send in Tom Woods.


Compare Rand's Maddow appearance with Ron's Matthews appearance, both on the CRA, I think Ron is actually better at this.

Mind you, BOTH Rand and Ron are better when they are defending a third party than when they are standing up for themselves.  I think Rand shouldn't be the one here more because it will be partially dismissed as filial bias, though.

----------


## Kords21

The only reason why I said it seems like newt's baggage doesn't matter is that I've heard a lot of these talking heads say "Yeah, newt has baggage, but it's already out there, people know about it, so it's no big deal". The knock on Cain was that his sex stuff wasn't out there and was "fresh" to the press.

----------


## Napolitanic Wars

I'm a little optimistic actually. This is actually a very weak attack in pure substance. There is very little in the newsletters that are actually racist, and it's obvious they were never written by Ron. It sounds nothing like him. If the campaign knows what they're doing, this should be easy to cut down IF they respond properly.

----------


## Cinderella

do we have a tube?  geez this sucks

----------


## kylejack

> I don't remember that one.  I read what I thought was the full list.  Wow, how to murder someone, really?  That is much more beyond the pale than what I recall.  Are you sure?


I can see if I can find it later. It was hedged in if someone is trying to mug you here's how you kill them and not get questioned about it or whatever.

----------


## Kords21

So when will Hannity be rocking out his Obama 12 gear? He's going to have to choose between Paul and Obama.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Hannity show recap:

Gingrich's twenty year old affairs are old news.

Paul's twenty year old newsletters-written-by-someone-else are extremely relevant, and need better vetting by the media (which was done in 1996 and again in 2008, moron.)

----------


## Chris_Redfield

so stupid

----------


## sailingaway

> I can see if I can find it later. It was hedged in if someone is trying to mug you here's how you kill them and not get questioned about it or whatever.


'hedged in'?  Or it was about self defense?  Because that is a huge moral difference.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Thanks guys. Hopefully I'll catch the tube. + a bazillion rep to whoever PMs it to me. Lol.

----------


## eff

he even had his one black listener call in to agree. weak.

----------


## kylejack

> 'hedged in'?  Or it was about self defense?  Because that is a huge moral difference.


Yes, it was about how to defend yourself and ensure you're never questioned or discovered by the police. Which, if the newsletter is trying to drum up racist sentiment, could easily be used as a way to kill someone who isn't attacking you. Very dangerous language.

----------


## cucucachu0000

i have to say most conservatives dont buy the race card i dont think its going to work i know ive become immune to it myself.

----------


## Give me liberty

> he even had his one black listener call in to agree. weak.


Really he did?  what did the listener say?

----------


## jct74

if anyone missed it here's a station that plays the show on a 1-hour delay
http://www.wayy790.com/streamtheworldpop.aspx

----------


## gjdavis60

Hannity's going to run with the newsletters.  I wonder if he'll have the balls to bring Kirchick on the show?  Now that would truly be "jumping the shark", but I wouldn't put it past him.

----------


## Havax

His candidacy would be over immediately if he did that. Awful idea. He also didn't write it. He used to write in the newsletters, then stopped for a long time as he was too busy with other things.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yeah, and there's one that describes ... one of those fleet-footed blacks, ...


Here's the exact quote, by an unknown author:




> "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

----------


## Bruno

We are officially in the "then they fight you" stage.  The status quo is very scared.

----------


## coffeewithchess

> Hannity said that he's going to invite him on tomorrow.


I heard this too, but he follows it up by saying he cannot support RP at all. The "rhetoric" in the newsletters is too much, and he doesn't believe he didn't write them...which considering RP has been on both sides of whether he did or not, is understandable, but what exact policy positions were stated in the newsletters that he doesn't agree with, he never mentioned.

----------


## Liberty74

> Hannity all but called Ron Paul a racist .  He's such a phony


*SHILL*

----------


## Liberty74

Where is the video of Sean questioning Ron about Ron claiming Sean was not a real conservative or something like that? Ron kinda brushed it off in a way...

I think this is an excellent time for Ron Paul to come clean about who Sean is.

----------


## eff

> Really he did?  what did the listener say?


he just said "finally someone is vetting this guy, etc". they let this guy on the show every once in a while, usually to argue with a black Obama fan from Michigan I think. its usually loud and obnoxious, and probably somewhat racist in some way. it almost seemed like comedy relief the last time I heard it.

----------


## steve7

Video 1 : *Caution some vulgar language* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFPMNDIbGJ8 Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeuSa0oIB6A

----------


## sailingaway

> His candidacy would be over immediately if he did that. Awful idea. He also didn't write it. He used to write in the newsletters, then stopped for a long time as he was too busy with other things.


I'm sure he wrote holiday greetings and such, but he didn't have a regular role.  He was a figurehead and a private person, not watching out for this sort of thing.

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

> i have to say most conservatives dont buy the race card i dont think its going to work i know ive become immune to it myself.


I agree

----------


## sailingaway

> Video 1 : *Caution some vulgar language* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFPMNDIbGJ8 Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeuSa0oIB6A


Oh, yeah, Linder, the district chief for the NAACP for Ron's district did a radio interview saying Ron wasn't racist years back over this issue.  It is on youtube.

----------


## Give me liberty

*Gingrich's people are scared to death and This is nothing more then a smear campaign.*

----------


## Liberty74

Any chance Napolitano will come to Paul's defense with the truth and call Sean out for what he is?

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

Does anyone have a link to what Hannity said ?

----------


## Philmanoman

Found this on some article I was reading in the comments section 
made me laugh

"Little do you know that attacking Ron Paul, or his views is almost like watching someone in jail being told 'you've been released', and you argue you're way to stay in jail, calling the jailer full of crap."

and this one lol

"30 years is an awful long time to be ridiculed, ignored, censored and laughed at by the establishment to just hopefully one day getin the White House and then go against everything you did and said your whole life"

----------


## Johncjackson

> And you know well Ron never backed that sort of approach whatever Rockwell or Rothbard did, and if you were really an individualist you would quit trying to pin the actions of different individuals to him. Don't fight your libertarian internecine grievances with Rockwell or Rothbard on Ron's body and campaign.


I know he didn't and I'm not pinning it on him. I was responding to a post that was agreeing with the contents of the newsletters, not about whether or not Ron Paul wrote or agreed with them. There are those who want to distance him from the newsletters as well as some who want to embrace the content because it's not that bad. I am saying I do not agree with the collectivism in the newsletters. And I don't believe Paul does either.

I am not the one defending Rockwell or others to the point that I WANT Ron paul to lose to protect LRC/LvMI people- as others did in 2007 and now. I swear there are "supporters" who are lot more loyal to that bunch than Ron Paul, and I am not one of them.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Footage of Hannity leaving the radio station after today's show:

----------


## STAND-or-fall

Once we break through this one THEY'VE GOT NOTHING LEFT!!!!!!!!!! Talk about poor strategy...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Yes, it was about how to defend yourself and ensure you're never questioned or discovered by the police.


It is quoting a cop.

----------


## Kuthreck

Hahaha, someone is going to give him a black eye soon.

----------


## erowe1

I heard 10 minutes or so of Hannity at the end of the program, and it was all about Ron Paul, and sounded like it had been for most of the show. It was all negative. But that's fine because everything Hannity brought up amounted to the most minor things in comparison to the baggage every other candidate has.

Hannity even mentioned at one point that he likes Ron Paul's proposal to cut $1 trillion from the budget immediately. The idea that he could put up all the minor grievances he had on one side of the balance $1 trillion in cuts on the other and pretend they're even on the same order of magnitude shows how desperate he is. I think he helped Ron Paul today, and it makes me smile to think about how desperate he is.

----------


## eric4186

so....how long until a tube?

----------


## seyferjm

> Footage of Hannity leaving the radio station after today's show:


That is from 2008, look at the dates

----------


## speciallyblend

> Footage of Hannity leaving the radio station after today's show:


them there some pissed off republicans!!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sorry, but are you defending this piece? It's gross. I'm just posting it because sailing asked, and so we all know what we're dealing with.


You made it sound much worse than it was, and you mixed it with an entirely different quote about "fleet-footed" kids.

----------


## kylejack

It's all the same messaging. Urban youth, carjacking is "the hiphop thing to do", it's all racist messaging intended to appeal to a certain racist demographic.

----------


## devil21

> Once we break through this one THEY'VE GOT NOTHING LEFT!!!!!!!!!! Talk about poor strategy...


That's what I was thinking.  If they want to shoot their last bullet this early then go for it.  There's still 3 weeks+ to fend it off and get back on issue before the caucus.  Besides, the "racism" thing is so thoroughly played out (along with the anti-semite thing overall) that it's lost all meaning and Republicans have been called racists so many times over the last few years that I don't think it has any lasting power over many of them.  Will it endear Ron to them?  Probably not, but I don't think it hurts very much either.  I do think this may be a set up piece for someone to bring them up during the debate tomorrow though so Ron better have his response already laid out!

I'd also like to see Rand go on Hannity tomorrow as Ron's surrogate instead of Ron himself.

----------


## KingNothing

It's racist.  It was stupid, and it was intended to get money from stupid people.

But Paul didn't write it.  He messed up by allowing his name to be associated with it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> That is from 2008, look at the dates


That was the joke.

----------


## seyferjm

> That was the joke.


nvm then, wasn't sure if you meant it as one or not.

----------


## RecoveringNeoCon



----------


## braane

They are aware it's from 2008, I am sure. This time let's keep it civil. Now is the worst time for people to think we are out of line or crazy. Let's just keep our heads down and push forward.

----------


## Bruno

> They are aware it's from 2008, I am sure. This time let's keep it civil. Now is the worst time for people to think we are out of line or crazy. Let's just keep our heads down and push forward.


Clear heads prevail!

----------


## Cinderella

> 


awesome pic of the great Doctor

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They are aware it's from 2008, I am sure. This time let's keep it civil. Now is the worst time for people to think we are out of line or crazy. Let's just keep our heads down and push forward.


But we *are* crazy!

----------


## Karsten

> But we *are* crazy!


Crazy for liberty.
Didn't Ron paul win Black Republicans in 2008 (I know that's a small demographic, but I think he did).
Also, keep mentioning the drug war.

----------


## RadioDJforPaul

Wow, Sean is using the old liberal trick.  If you can't argue his points because they are true, just call him a racist.

----------


## STAND-or-fall

> That's what I was thinking.  If they want to shoot their last bullet this early then go for it.  There's still 3 weeks+ to fend it off and get back on issue before the caucus.  Besides, the "racism" thing is so thoroughly played out (along with the anti-semite thing overall) that it's lost all meaning and Republicans have been called racists so many times over the last few years that I don't think it has any lasting power over many of them.  Will it endear Ron to them?  Probably not, but I don't think it hurts very much either.  I do think this may be a set up piece for someone to bring them up during the debate tomorrow though so Ron better have his response already laid out!
> 
> I'd also like to see Rand go on Hannity tomorrow as Ron's surrogate instead of Ron himself.


   I'm sure the campaiqn has this one covered. it will be like winning a game of whack-a-mole with one 'whack'.

----------


## falconplayer11

Sean Hannity sucks.

The newsletter issue is no more significant (or racist, for that matter) than Newt Gingrich calling for the death penalty for all Mexicans smuggling drugs into the US. But Sean doesn't mention that.

----------


## devil21

> Crazy for liberty.
> Didn't Ron paul win Black Republicans in 2008 (I know that's a small demographic, but I think he did).
> Also, keep mentioning the drug war.


And the head of the NAACP in Ron's district is on record that Ron isn't racist at all.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...not_racist.htm

(I dont like using AJ links but this is one of the better ones)

----------


## sailingaway

> Sean Hannity sucks.
> 
> The newsletter issue is no more significant (or racist, for that matter) than Newt Gingrich calling for the death penalty for all Mexicans smuggling drugs into the US. But Sean doesn't mention that.


Newts was worse because it actually was NEWT.  This was NOT Ron.

----------


## beardedlinen

Desperate Hannity attack was desperate

----------


## gjdavis60

Hannity really is despicable.  I hope the neocon talk show hosts are desperate enough to reach out to the left-wing Paul haters and form an alliance against him.  It's a remote possibility, but they are so freaked-out about this, I can see it happening.  It could be the tipping point that we have been waiting for in the Republican party.  It would expose the neocons once and for all as the big-government loving hypocrites that they really are, guided only by their desire for power and control.

----------


## Bruno

Hope most of his audience are seeing through this.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

Hannity really is a scummy human being.  He gives free passes to Newt and Cain, but the newsletters are obviously not written by Ron Paul (who, as a Congressman, wouldn't have the time to even write those).  Yet, he fixates on these like he fixates on men's anuses.

$#@! him. Wintertime is coming, Hannity

----------


## K466

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...gop_field.html

Just happened to watch Insannity interview Ann Culter on her endorsement of Mittens (last night). Insanity said all candidates would be a good president except Ron Paul, "I have a problem with his foreign policy and some of his writings that went on for a decade".

Insannity is getting his directions from somewhere. I just hope the good Doctor and the campaign handle this well. That's all that matters. He must do better than Herman Cain't.

----------


## James Madison

> Sean Hannity sucks.
> 
> The newsletter issue is no more significant (or racist, for that matter) than Newt Gingrich calling for the death penalty for all Mexicans smuggling drugs into the US. But Sean doesn't mention that.


Let's not forget Newt's comments about the Palistinians being an 'invented people'.

----------


## Ekrub

someone have a tube or link to where they discuss this?

----------


## samsung1

this stuff isnt sticking at the moment.. if you check the blogs and forums there's barely a mention on it.. maybe its too soon? maybe it will get worse after debate?

----------


## sailingaway

> this stuff isnt sticking at the moment.. if you check the blogs and forums there's barely a mention on it.. maybe its too soon? maybe it will get worse after debate?


It has been out there forever.  I don't think too many who use blogs are ignorant of it.  MSM discussions are more rare.

----------


## Deborah K

Ron Paul the racist

----------


## Giuliani was there on 911

is there a recording of this yet ?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I want to read the newsletters.  Where are they?
> 
> - ML


I have read them.

You'd be exposed to more "racism" watching old _All in the Family_ re-runs.

----------


## Adrock

One of the best things about these forums is that we can all give feedback about situations that come up with the campaign. The campaign can then look through and see if any ideas are worth incorporating into their response. That being said here is my take on what their strategy should be:

I feel that Hannity may have unwittingly given the campaign an opportunity here. We all knew that the media or another campaign was going to bring this up at some point, even though it has been already addressed in the past. What matters the most is that if and when the campaign addresses this they should do so properly. If we remember the Cain fiasco, it had turned into how the campaign responded to the claims that mattered. I know that the campaign doesn't want to get off message, but it is still three weeks out until game day. If they respond in a correct manner it could be a real plus.

1.) The newness of an issue is what drives headlines. Since the issue hasn't been brought up in a long time by the main stream media, it will have the feel of newness. If the campaign responds correctly and definitively, they can put this to bed not only for the primary but perhaps the general election. Address it in a press release tomorrow or Friday and then move on to other issues. If they do this then it gets minimal coverage over the weekend, but it will also be officially out there again so the newness is gone.

2.) During Rand's campaign, the establishment tried the same thing. Ron should go after this issue as an establishment vs grassroots issue. Don't address Hannity directly, but address the situation and attribute it to "the machine". This could also drive up donations for the money bomb on Friday! I remember this video from the campaign.

----------


## Feelgood

I used to be Hannitized.
I've since been sanitized.
Enough with the Hannity insanity!

----------


## Anti Federalist

The snowballs were well deserved.

----------


## ShaneEnochs

> Hannity really is a scummy human being.  He gives free passes to Newt and Cain, but the newsletters are obviously not written by Ron Paul (who, as a Congressman, wouldn't have the time to even write those).  Yet, he fixates on these like he fixates on men's anuses.
> 
> $#@! him. Wintertime is coming, Hannity


He was doing his doctor stuff full time then I believe.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Hannity really is a scummy human being.  He gives free passes to Newt and Cain, but the newsletters are obviously not written by Ron Paul (who, as a Congressman, wouldn't have the time to even write those).  Yet, he fixates on these like he fixates on men's anuses.
> 
> *$#@! him. Wintertime is coming, Hannity*



Oh yeah...lol

----------


## Karsten

>>>>>>>>>>>>HOLD!!!!!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (for Hannity's snowballs)

----------


## The Gold Standard

> The snowballs were well deserved.


Should have thrown bricks.

----------


## Karsten

> Should have thrown bricks.


The bricks will be Iowa/New Hampshire voters 
I can't wait to hear Levin and Hannity in January

----------


## Deborah K

What is wrong with these people????  How can anyone say things like this about him with a straight face.  This one minute clip is just one example of how great this man is.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

> He was doing his doctor stuff full time then I believe.


I think it's funny people say he's racist, because it honestly wouldn't shock me if he did pro-bono medical work for poor illegals...

----------


## eric4186

50+ pages and no video? really?

----------


## Deborah K

> I think it's funny people say he's racist, because it honestly wouldn't shock me if he did pro-bono medical work for poor illegals...


...or poor blacks.   Wish someone would start a campaign and get all the babies he's delivered to come forward.

----------


## Feelgood

> 50+ pages and no video? really?


Really really.

----------


## ZanZibar

> Wow, Sean is using the old liberal trick.  If you can't argue his points because they are true, just call him a racist.


Actually it's even worse. It's a trick perfected by Trotsky

----------


## Fredom101

> Whoever was responsible for those newsletters need to come out clean and assume the responsibility for writing them.


Hate to say it but it's Lew.

----------


## georgiaboy

As professing conservatives, these guys are just digging the hole deeper for themselves.  Mind-boggling.  They won't recover from this.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hate to say it but it's Lew.


It's nothing to be sad about.  See AF's post up there ^^

----------


## Matthew Zak

Ron Paul should respond ot Hannity when he gets on the show, like this:

"This is a non-issue Sean. I'm doing very well in Iowa, and that scares you because you don't like my non-interventionist foreign policy and as a result you accuse me of being racist? You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be careful not to alienate the 70% of our base who agree with me and wants us out of these wars. You have a future audience to consider."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What is wrong with these people????  How can anyone say things like this about him with a straight face.  This one minute clip is just one example of how great this man is.


Reading off a teleprompter makes it easier to hold back laughter.

----------


## Fredom101

> It's nothing to be sad about.  See AF's post up there ^^


I'm just sad that Lew would come up with such a bad idea, and that in 2008 and now he's chosen to remain silent about his involvement with the newsletters.

----------


## specsaregood

> I'm just sad that Lew would come up with such a bad idea, and that in 2008 and now he's chosen to remain silent about his involvement with the newsletters.


you should be ashamed of yourself for making such accusations without any evidence.  were you there?  who told you it was his idea?  the same people that work to discredit dr. paul?

----------


## Fredom101

> you should be ashamed of yourself for making such accusations without any evidence.  were you there?  who told you it was his idea?  the same people that work to discredit dr. paul?


No, it's almost certainly Lew. Please read this article and tell me you still don't think Lew wrote them: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/1...uls-newsletter

----------


## Fredom101

> Ron Paul should respond ot Hannity when he gets on the show, like this:
> 
> "This is a non-issue Sean. I'm doing very well in Iowa, and that scares you because you don't like my non-interventionist foreign policy and as a result you accuse me of being racist? You should be ashamed of yourself. You should be careful not to alienate the 70% of our base who agree with me and wants us out of these wars. You have a future audience to consider."


I dislike the idea of Ron telling Hannity he "should be ashamed of himself". Telling people this never invokes shame in that person, and his audience will feel as if Ron is attacking them.

----------


## specsaregood

> No, it's almost certainly Lew. Please read this article and tell me you still don't think Lew wrote them: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/1...uls-newsletter


Right, the reason crowd using an anonymous source.  lol.  Like I said the people that would love for Dr. Paul to lose.  Rockwell said he didn't, are you going to call him a liar without any evidence?
You trust those hacks over Paul and Rockwell?

My anonymous source says you wrote them, how about that?

----------


## Fredom101

> Right, the reason crowd using an anonymous source.  lol.  Like I said the people that would love for Dr. Paul to lose.  Rockwell said he didn't, are you going to call him a liar without any evidence?
> You trust those hacks over Paul and Rockwell?
> 
> My anonymous source says you wrote them, how about that?


You didn't read it. There was evidence all over that article. It's almost certainly Lew. If it's not Lew, who could it be?

----------


## coastie

> Right, the reason crowd using an anonymous source.  lol.  Like I said the people that would love for Dr. Paul to lose.  Rockwell said he didn't, are you going to call him a liar without any evidence?
> You trust those hacks over Paul and Rockwell?
> 
> My anonymous source says you wrote them, how about that?


I agree-any research into it leads to some obscure entry somewhere where someone mentions it might have been Lew.

Funny how some people use the same tactics the government we are trying to rid of, i.e. conviction without any evidence whatsoever.

----------


## Fredom101

> I agree-any research into it leads to some obscure entry somewhere where someone mentions it might have been Lew.
> 
> Funny how some people use the same tactics the government we are trying to rid of, i.e. conviction without any evidence whatsoever.


That's not what they did. They talked to sources close to Lew and the newsletters. They used the evidence of Lew's "Paleo-libertarian" campaign, where he was actively trying to recruit conservatives who aligned with the likes of David Duke. Lew admits this, and was writing for Ron back then....yet, somehow, he isn't the one who wrote them? I'm not buying Lew's innocence here.

----------


## Steppenwolf6

..God...MEDIA SPIN!
Out of here.
Is it really so difficult to understand why?
Enough with giving so much undue importance to these clowns.
We already knew what the msm and the political establishment are( and they have'nt even begun,it will get worse believe me,much worse)
here,now let's find ways to expand the revolution further,without those clowns and promote good news

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm just sad that Lew would come up with such a bad idea, and that in 2008 and now he's chosen to remain silent about his involvement with the newsletters.


Zuh?  The newsletters were written some 30 odd years ago.  They aren't as bad as RP haters are making them out to be.  Lew has talked about them in his blog a bit, IIRC.  But I can see why he doesn't bring unnecessary attention to it.  It's a distraction from relevant issues.

This is supposedly an excerpt from one of the newsletters: hxxp://bloggingblue.com/2011/12/06/will-ron-paul-be-able-to-walk-this-back/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's not what they did. They talked to sources close to Lew and the newsletters. They used the evidence of Lew's "Paleo-libertarian" campaign, where he was actively trying to recruit conservatives who aligned with the likes of David Duke. Lew admits this, and was writing for Ron back then....yet, somehow, he isn't the one who wrote them? *I'm not buying Lew's innocence here*.


Then prove his guilt.  The onus of proof is on the one making a positive assertion.

----------


## angelatc

Hannity's guest also played the truther card.  These talking points have been out there for 4 years. I hope the campaign has a coherent, persuasive response ready, and I hope that Ron's ready for the attacks during the debate.

If I thought anybody would believe me, I'd tell everybody I wrote the newsletters to take the heat away from Ron Paul.

----------


## Fredom101

> Zuh?  The newsletters were written some 30 odd years ago.  They aren't as bad as RP haters are making them out to be.  Lew has talked about them in his blog a bit, IIRC.  But I can see why he doesn't bring unnecessary attention to it.  It's a distraction from relevant issues.
> 
> This is supposedly an excerpt from one of the newsletters: hxxp://bloggingblue.com/2011/12/06/will-ron-paul-be-able-to-walk-this-back/


Yes, I know they were 30 years ago. Just read that article I posted. Hard to imagine it not being Lew with all that evidence. At the very least, Lew was well aware of the writings at the time and did nothing. I'm just saying he should come out and take full responsibility, and say how stupid it was but that Ron had nothing to do with it. Period.

----------


## Fredom101

> Then prove his guilt.  The onus of proof is on the one making a positive assertion.


There isn't proof, just like there isn't proof of OJ killing anyone. But, you can look at the evidence stacked up and take an educated guess. Just read that article and tell me you don't think there is at least a strong case against Lew here.

----------


## jct74

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjKfL-3ijJo

----------


## Paulistinian

I hate that $#@!ing leprechaun.

----------


## WD-NY

> No, it's almost certainly Lew. Please read this article and tell me you still don't think Lew wrote them: http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/1...uls-newsletter


Lew Rockwell = Ron Paul's Rev. Wright

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's not what they did. They talked to sources close to Lew and the newsletters. They used the evidence of Lew's "Paleo-libertarian" campaign, where he was actively trying to *recruit conservatives who aligned with the likes of David Duke.* Lew admits this, and was writing for Ron back then....yet, somehow, he isn't the one who wrote them? I'm not buying Lew's innocence here.


A distortion.  According to the reason article referenced in this thread, it was the populist techniques/rhetorical style that Duke used to successfully recruit right-wingers that Lew sought to emulate.

----------


## Fermli

lol, nice unlisted youtube =)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Lew Rockwell = Ron Paul's Rev. Wright


Except Lew wasn't intentionally racist in the context of the articles.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There isn't proof, just like there isn't proof of OJ killing anyone. But, you can look at the evidence stacked up and take an educated guess. Just read that article and tell me you don't think there is at least a strong case against Lew here.


I see proof that he used some inflammatory rhetoric (as he does now).  The most we can gather from these articles is that he was being a populist and trying to reach a targeted audience. (an _"Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes_." as the article states)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> ..God...MEDIA SPIN!
> Out of here.
> Is it really so difficult to understand why?
> Enough with giving so much undue importance to these clowns.
> We already knew what the msm and the political establishment are( and they have'nt even begun,it will get worse believe me,much worse)
> here,now let's find ways to expand the revolution further,without those clowns and promote good news


This^^

----------


## Umad

Did Sean bring up his own connections with Hal Turner?

----------


## cdw

Two things, then I'll go back to lurking:

1. The campaign doesn't need to acknowledge $#@! from a shill like Hannity and his handler Levin. Their reach is overstated, their audience not as passionate, informed, nor as numerous. _Any_ acknowledgement from the campaign just adds unneeded and unfounded questions/concerns about the associations/judgement of the good Doctor, and most importantly, props up the ego for Hannity and Levin. They are not just throwing these accusations out to bring down Dr. Paul, but also to maintain the last remnants of influence they _think_ they have over the electorate. Do *not* feed into it, we are too close to victory to anchor ourselves with this rubberish. I am with the person who said that the campaign should not dignify this with a response. Ignore this until it's no longer ignorable, then attack the accusations with ferocity while using the opportunity to interject real issues. Dr. Paul (or Rand if he has the fortitude) should never step foot on Hannity's show ever again after this ploy by he and Levin. Period.

2. Please stop creating so many threads about this topic in the grassroots section. You are only adding unnecessary attention to a subject matter that thus far is being ignored by every one else in the media. While's it's good to be prepared for anything, making something out to be bigger than it currently is will just make it a self-fulling prophecy in the end. Let Hannity and Levin spin their wheels till the cows come home, as long as the rubberish isn't making news everywhere, then it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The headlines in the grassroots sections are tweeted and with Dr. Paul's popularity rising right now there are new, impressionable visitors finding these boards more often. Please recognize this and act accordingly. When the morning comes, hopefully the mods, please, move *all* threads and discussions about these Hannity attacks to the hot topic section where they belong. 

With all the positive, uplifting things being said around the country about our candidate, there is no reason to see several topics on the first page of the grassroots about garbage spewed by a neo-con statist like Hannity.

----------


## rambone

*Sean Hannity: Ron Paul is Going To Get “Anal Exam”*

Later this evening on the TV show: 
*Sean Hannity And Bill Bennett Trash Ron Paul: ‘The Candidacy Isn’t Going Anywhere’*

----------


## TNforPaul45

Without having listened to the YouTube yet, I have to think that maybe this is a strange, GOP insider way of putting a little heat to Paul and testing him while "under fire." Because you know if he is the nominee, that this would be the first attack that Obama's camp would launch against him. And it would be more effective then too, because, well, of Obama's race.

We know they hate Paul. And that makes it easier for them to go full-smear on him. But also, they may be thinking "well if there's a chance he might be the nominee, lets vet him early and see how many bullets he can take and sling back at the other side."

Just my two cents.

----------


## JohnM

> Let's not forget Newt's comments about the Palistinians being an 'invented people'.


It was worse than that.  He went on to say "Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. *These people are terrorists*.  

As Michael Weiss commented "Its a bad sign when a politician praises his own courage for a statement that sounds to the average ear demagogic and pandering."

Newt Gingrich is doing exactly what the writer of the notorious newsletter article did.  The newsletter article basically said that "all inner city young black males are criminals".  Gingrich basically said "All Palestinians are terrorists."   Both were making wild generalisations about certain groups based on their ethnicity.  I cannot really see any difference, except that the newsletter was speaking about Americans, whereas Gingrich was speaking about foreigners. (So it must be OK, then.)

Furthermore, the newsletter article said it a couple of decades ago.  Gingrich said it _this week_.

----------


## gjdavis60

If Paul is the nominee the neocons and their talk show sycophants will bolt to a third party in a heartbeat.

----------


## BucksforPaul

> Two things, then I'll go back to lurking:
> 
> 1. The campaign doesn't need to acknowledge $#@! from a shill like Hannity and his handler Levin. Their reach is overstated, their audience not as passionate, informed, nor as numerous. _Any_ acknowledgement from the campaign just adds unneeded and unfounded questions/concerns about the associations/judgement of the good Doctor, and most importantly, props up the ego for Hannity and Levin. They are not just throwing these accusations out to bring down Dr. Paul, but also to maintain the last remnants of influence they _think_ they have over the electorate. Do *not* feed into it, we are too close to victory to anchor ourselves with this rubberish. I am with the person who said that the campaign should not dignify this with a response. Ignore this until it's no longer ignorable, then attack the accusations with ferocity while using the opportunity to interject real issues. Dr. Paul (or Rand if he has the fortitude) should never step foot on Hannity's show ever again after this ploy by he and Levin. Period.
> 
> 2. Please stop creating so many threads about this topic in the grassroots section. You are only adding unnecessary attention to a subject matter that thus far is being ignored by every one else in the media. While's it's good to be prepared for anything, making something out to be bigger than it currently is will just make it a self-fulling prophecy in the end. Let Hannity and Levin spin their wheels till the cows come home, as long as the rubberish isn't making news everywhere, then it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The headlines in the grassroots sections are tweeted and with Dr. Paul's popularity rising right now there are new, impressionable visitors finding these boards more often. Please recognize this and act accordingly. When the morning comes, hopefully the mods, please, move *all* threads and discussions about these Hannity attacks to the hot topic section where they belong. 
> 
> With all the positive, uplifting things being said around the country about our candidate, there is no reason to see several topics on the first page of the grassroots about garbage spewed by a neo-con statist like Hannity.


This!  Great first post and welcome to the forums.

----------


## TexMac

My theory is that Murray Rothbard wrote the letters.  Ron has said that the person who wrote them isn't around anymore, right?  Lew and Ron are protecting the memory and legacy of Murray Rothbard, the second most important Austrian economist in history.    Lew's a saint for not saying it wasn't him.  He's suffering all these slurs for the cause.

----------


## IndianaPolitico

> My theory is that Murray Rothbard wrote the letters.  Ron has said that the person who wrote them isn't around anymore, right?  Lew and Ron are protecting the memory and legacy of Murray Rothbard, the second most important Austrian economist in history.    Lew's a saint for not saying it wasn't him.  He's suffering all these slurs for the cause.


Ron said he wasn't around anymore?

----------


## The_Ruffneck

> If Paul is the nominee the neocons and their talk show sycophants will bolt to a third party in a heartbeat.


They're irrelevant now , they pushed Gingrich and he tanked.
Anyway the only question mark they've got on Paul right now is his age , otherwise he is mr teflon.

----------


## Cinderella

> Originally Posted by cdw
> 
> Two things, then I'll go back to lurking:
> 
> 1. The campaign doesn't need to acknowledge $#@! from a shill like Hannity and his handler Levin. Their reach is overstated, their audience not as passionate, informed, nor as numerous. Any acknowledgement from the campaign just adds unneeded and unfounded questions/concerns about the associations/judgement of the good Doctor, and most importantly, props up the ego for Hannity and Levin. They are not just throwing these accusations out to bring down Dr. Paul, but also to maintain the last remnants of influence they think they have over the electorate. Do not feed into it, we are too close to victory to anchor ourselves with this rubberish. I am with the person who said that the campaign should not dignify this with a response. Ignore this until it's no longer ignorable, then attack the accusations with ferocity while using the opportunity to interject real issues. Dr. Paul (or Rand if he has the fortitude) should never step foot on Hannity's show ever again after this ploy by he and Levin. Period.
> 
> 2. Please stop creating so many threads about this topic in the grassroots section. You are only adding unnecessary attention to a subject matter that thus far is being ignored by every one else in the media. While's it's good to be prepared for anything, making something out to be bigger than it currently is will just make it a self-fulling prophecy in the end. Let Hannity and Levin spin their wheels till the cows come home, as long as the rubberish isn't making news everywhere, then it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The headlines in the grassroots sections are tweeted and with Dr. Paul's popularity rising right now there are new, impressionable visitors finding these boards more often. Please recognize this and act accordingly. When the morning comes, hopefully the mods, please, move all threads and discussions about these Hannity attacks to the hot topic section where they belong. 
> 
> With all the positive, uplifting things being said around the country about our candidate, there is no reason to see several topics on the first page of the grassroots about garbage spewed by a neo-con statist like Hannity.


+REP +1776 nice post

----------


## wgadget

Prediction:  Hannity and Friends fade into obscurity.  

Can't happen soon enough.

----------


## Fredom101

This is a group (Hannity, Rush, Levin, etc.) that is in their final throws. I honestly don't think they are going to relevant for much longer. Ever see one of the Hannity rallies? Compare the average age to the average age of a RP rally. You'll see what I mean. The old people who are listening to these guys are going to die off soon, and there's no one to replace them. Buh-bye guys!

----------


## Deborah K

> Hannity's guest also played the truther card.  These talking points have been out there for 4 years. I hope the campaign has a coherent, persuasive response ready, and I hope that Ron's ready for the attacks during the debate.
> 
> If I thought anybody would believe me, *I'd tell everybody I wrote the newsletters to take the heat away from Ron Paul*.


This.  The person who wrote those letters needs to grow some hair and do the right thing.  The media in general HATES the idea of a RP presidency.  They will be like pit-bulls on this, and anything else they can make stick.  Ron will be held to a much higher standard than anyone else.  I believe the campaign has a strategy in place for the expected attack.  And we know what we need to do to supplement it - call in, and write in - post everywhere - factual information, with class and dignity - always.

----------


## Deborah K

> It was worse than that.  He went on to say "Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. *These people are terrorists*.  
> 
> As Michael Weiss commented "Its a bad sign when a politician praises his own courage for a statement that sounds to the average ear demagogic and pandering."
> 
> Newt Gingrich is doing exactly what the writer of the notorious newsletter article did.  The newsletter article basically said that "all inner city young black males are criminals".  Gingrich basically said "All Palestinians are terrorists."   Both were making wild generalisations about certain groups based on their ethnicity.  I cannot really see any difference, except that the newsletter was speaking about Americans, whereas Gingrich was speaking about foreigners. (So it must be OK, then.)
> 
> Furthermore, the newsletter article said it a couple of decades ago.  Gingrich said it _this week_.


That's a pretty decent analogy.  I'd rep ya but I'm out.

----------


## SilentBull

> This is a group (Hannity, Rush, Levin, etc.) that is in their final throws. I honestly don't think they are going to relevant for much longer. Ever see one of the Hannity rallies? Compare the average age to the average age of a RP rally. You'll see what I mean. The old people who are listening to these guys are going to die off soon, and there's no one to replace them. Buh-bye guys!


I wish I could agree. These guys will just transform themselves. If Ron Paul wins, they will just pretend they were with him all along, and they will keep fooling people for years to come.

----------


## trey4sports

> I wish I could agree. These guys will just transform themselves. If Ron Paul wins, they will just pretend they were with him all along, and they will keep fooling people for years to come.


maybe if their ratings weren't in massive decline I'd agree with you, but fortunately the data seems to show these people are losing their listeners. Rush, and Hannity in particular.

----------


## specsaregood

> This.  The person who wrote those letters needs to grow some hair and do the right thing.


And I keep saying it, that's gonna be tough to do if the person is deceased.  And there is no way Dr. Paul is going to point fingers at a deceased person that can't defend themselves or bring the media scrutiny on their family.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> This.  The person who wrote those letters needs to grow some hair and do the right thing.


What is stopping Ron Paul from revealing the name of the person?  If they don't respect Dr. Paul enough to come clean on their own, why should Paul feel any need to cover for them?

Like it or not, not revealing the true author while claiming someone else other than Paul did write them, makes Paul look guilty as sin in the eyes of the media.

----------


## wgadget

> They're irrelevant now , they pushed Gingrich and he tanked.
> Anyway the only question mark they've got on Paul right now is his age , otherwise he is mr teflon.


Let's not forget that they also pushed Bachmann, Perry and Cain...and they also TANKED.

LOL

So much for principles and credibility.

----------


## Carole

Great post. I agree with you.

----------


## Deborah K

> And I keep saying it, that's gonna be tough to do if the person is deceased.  And there is no way Dr. Paul is going to point fingers at a deceased person that can't defend themselves or bring the media scrutiny on their family.


Why are you so willing to believe it is Rothbard and not Rockwell who wrote the letters?  Where's your evidence?

----------


## specsaregood

> Why are you so willing to believe it is Rothbard and not Rockwell who wrote the letters?  Where's your evidence?


Who said anything about Rothbard?  It could have been any old cranky miser, i don't think i ever said rothbard.  They had people contributing to it didnt they?   Let's face it, that was nearly 20 years ago, there is a good chance the person that wrote it died, went senile or any other myriad of age-related problems that would keep them from being able to defend themselves.

----------


## erowe1

It doesn't matter who wrote them. Ron Paul didn't. No one disputes that. It's a non-story and should be treated like one. If anyone did come forward that would only give it new life.

----------


## Deborah K

> Who said anything about Rothbard?  It could have been any old cranky miser, i don't think i ever said rothbard.  They had people contributing to it didnt they?   Let's face it, that was nearly 20 years ago, there is a good chance the person that wrote it died, went senile or any other myriad of age-related problems that would keep them from being able to defend themselves.


If this turns into a clusterf'k, and they can prove without a doubt who wrote those letters - strategically speaking - they would be smart to do so, regardless of who it is, and whether they are still alive.  This is the Presidency we're talking about here.  Ron shouldn't be expected to risk the Presidency in an effort to honor someone's memory (if dead) or reputation (if alive).

----------


## Deborah K

> It doesn't matter who wrote them. Ron Paul didn't. No one disputes that. It's a non-story and should be treated like one. If anyone did come forward that would only give it new life.


No one disputes it?  Shamity so much as brought it into question.

----------


## 69360

Hannity did say something along the lines of not believing Ron. I forget the exact words.

----------


## speciallyblend

hannity is about to be steam rolled by an avalanche of LIBERTY!!!!!! forget snowballs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0RWLxOFGLY<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0RWLxOFGLY">

----------


## erowe1

> No one disputes it?  Shamity so much as brought it into question.


He'll ask Paul about it again. Paul will say the same thing he always has. Hannity won't dispute that. He can't. If he tries he'll only show how obvious it is that those aren't Paul's own words. There's nothing more anyone can do. Someone else coming forward and saying they wrote it only gives the story more legs.

----------


## specsaregood

> He'll ask Paul about it again. Paul will say the same thing he always has. Hannity won't dispute that. He can't. There's nothing more anyone can do. Someone else coming forward and saying they wrote it only gives the story more legs.


And I hope Dr. PAul knows that Hannity insinuated he was a liar last night.

----------


## Deborah K

> He'll ask Paul about it again. Paul will say the same thing he always has. Hannity won't dispute that. He can't. There's nothing more anyone can do. Someone else coming forward and saying they wrote it only gives the story more legs.


Note that I stated:  *If this turns into a clusterf'k.*  Believe me when I state that as he rises in the polls and popularity,  he will be held to a much higher standard than everyone else.  They will pull out all the stops.  For the campaign, or any of us to assume otherwise is ignorant and dangerous to his election.

----------


## jason43

> Note that I stated:  *If this turns into a clusterf'k.*  Believe me when I state that as he rises in the polls and popularity,  he will be held to a much higher standard than everyone else.  They will pull out all the stops.  For the campaign, or any of us to assume otherwise is ignorant and dangerous to his election.


I agree that this is something that the campaign needs to have a plan for. The writer needs to come forward if it becomes a major issue after the Iowa win, and say that they were written without Pauls knowledge and that when it was brought to his attention, the writer was told to stop. The other issue that they are going to have to cover is the civil rights act of 1964, and he needs to have a concise answer for questions about this issue. 

Do not doubt for one second that the MSM will bring these issues up. Ron is a threat to them. And I wouldnt even be surprised to see Fox bring them up tonight because Paul has been gaining momentum and they want to nip it in the bud. Never underestimate the machine we are up against. Just because we internet nerds have read and understand what happened doesnt mean that the media wont trip over themselves trying to use whatever they can to take us and our movement apart. Racism is the easiest card they can pull to make it happen.

----------


## IterTemporis

The one thing I do not understand is how Perry is easily given a pass, yet RP is not. .

----------


## devil21

So far, the only media followup Ive seen to this is a rather weak op/ed on the New York Times website.  Nothing else.  Did this lose steam before it even got rolling?

----------


## Oklahoman

If you want things in context with words we all love, I truly believe:

The Establishment:  "We have not yet begun to fight"

Can only be beat with:  "I regret that I have but one live to give for my country" type push by the Ron Paul Army.

You need only go back to see how the Democrats crucified Jesse Jackson in 88 to see what we are going to go up against.  People are acting as if we are at 90% and tonight's debate is going to win the election.  We are maybe at 1%.  

No joke, even if Ron wins Iowa, and then by some miracle pulls off NH, the next slide of states will go firmly to the establishment.  We are on the first step of a war with the media and the GOP.  This is Bull Run or Manasses Creek folks....

The good news is....if we win, we will cremate Obama.  To win the GOP we will have to have AMERICA unite behind Dr. Paul.

----------


## 69360

> If you want things in context with words we all love, I truly believe:
> 
> The Establishment:  "We have not yet begun to fight"
> 
> Can only be beat with:  "I regret that I have but one live to give for my country" type push by the Ron Paul Army.
> 
> You need only go back to see how the Democrats crucified Jesse Jackson in 88 to see what we are going to go up against.  People are acting as if we are at 90% and tonight's debate is going to win the election.  We are maybe at 1%.  
> 
> No joke, even if Ron wins Iowa, and then by some miracle pulls off NH, the next slide of states will go firmly to the establishment.  We are on the first step of a war with the media and the GOP.  This is Bull Run or Manasses Creek folks....
> ...


SC and FL are not going to go well, prepare yourselves for it. But after that comes the rest of the caucus states which will go well.

----------

