Hannity about to go on attack

[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.