I think the best way for Ron Paul to handle the newsletters is to release them online

[merrimac]

Ron Paul said his favorite President was Grover Cleveland and I think during his campaign when his aides asked how they should deal with a scandle he had with a mistress, he told them to tell the truth. I think Ron Paul should release all of them to the public on his website and release a statement online saying that he doesn't want to hide anything from his supporters. He didn't write the material though it was sent out under his name and he doesn't want his newsletters to be characterized by a few cherry picked paragraphs so he's releasing everything to the public so they can read it and make up their own minds instead of just accepting what the MSM tells them.

 

[hazek]

Best way to handle it is to ignore it. Why give something the media wants parrot 24/7 even more publicity and credibility? I really don't understand people who want to "do something" about something that is really nothing.

 

[RonPaulFever]

concern troll

 

[merrimac]

Best way to handle it is to ignore it. Why give something the media wants parrot 24/7 even more publicity and credibility? I really don't understand people who want to "do something" about something that is really nothing.

I don't think ignoring it is his best move. Like Obama refusing to release his birth certificate it generates more suspicion by ignoring it. I think he should say something or release a statement to his supporters online. He doesn't owe the media anything because clearly their sole purpose is to destroy his campaign.

 

[vita3]

That would be pretty admirable.

 

[blocks]

I do think that Dr. Paul should speak out and once again make the Constitutional and moral case for racial equality through individual liberty. Yes, he's done it before but now he's a front runner...you got to do it again. It's politics, you got to explain and explain.

 

[jpate86]

The best way to this handle is to get the media to be reasonable and accept the answer to a question they have asked numerous times. Or if they don't accept the answer they have been given, or they need to just come out and say they feel Ron Paul is lying about the whole thing. That is fine if they want to take that position, but it forces them to take a position and put their credibility on the line about a story they apparently feel is important. I am sure everyone knows about this controversy with Rick Perry. It seems that the media's approach with this was to address this early, accept the explanations given, and move on. There are even accounts of the incident by several other people that contradict Perry's explanation, but the media doesn't seem to worried about it. I had an idea that would allow all Ron Paul supporters to work together to confront the media on issues like this. Details are in this thread if interested.

 

[LeJimster]

he's handling it fine, he disavows them and says "look at my record and every interview i've ever done."

 

[Ilhaguru]

I know it's annoying that this is brought up all the time and he has to repeat himself, but I don't think he should be walking out of interviews.

 

[idiom]

If they were posted online it would be an absolute mountain of irrelevant material which would show:

1: RP has nothing to hide
2: The allegations are massively overplayed

Could post them all on website and say go and look, it would take people days to find anything racist on their own.

 

[R3V0LUT10N1776]

I completely agree, I think that's a great idea.

 

[wxflyguy]

I don't think the campaign needs to post the letters as the media has already done a good job about dredging all that crap up. What they definitely should do though is for Ron Paul to have a statement on the main campaign site that talks about everything he's already said in other interviews. Why might you ask? It can only help when undecided voters go to the website to see what the campaign is saying to refute the media's distorted coverage of the comments. The media will still slander, will still distort...but address it for the undecideds to see and wrap it up with the same outstanding comments about how libertarians are incapable of being racist because they want liberty, freedom, and equality for all. Here's what I just wrote to the campaign on the contact us site:

"As a strong supporter that wants desperately for Ron Paul to succeed, I think the campaign would attract positive attention from undecided voters who want the straight truth from Dr. Paul about the controversial newsletters that he didn't write. Something as simple as a linked statement that stays on the main page would help tremendously that puts the controversy to rest. While it shouldn't have to be done, it would go a long way to provide clarity for those undecided voters and Gloria Borgers out there!"

 

[zHorns]

I think this is a terrible idea.

Why should we support the display of that kind of language?

Paul has taken moral responsibility for allowing them to be published, so our response, is to republish them?

He didn't write the material though it was sent out under his name and he doesn't want his newsletters to be characterized by a few cherry picked paragraphs so he's releasing everything to the public so they can read it and make up their own minds instead of just accepting what the MSM tells them.

And our defense shouldn't be "Well, it was only a little racist, here and there, did you see the stuff about the Gold Standard?".

 

[acptulsa]

merrimac, what on earth makes you think he still has copies of those damned things? I don't believe he even got copies new, or he'd have put a stop to it back then. Do really imagine he asks for printouts of every post on this forum every day? Really?

Oh, and the Merrimac never fought the Monitor. The Virginia fought the Monitor in Newport News. May have used the same hull, but looked nothing like it.

 

[kill the banks]

frankly if it was a fair game with real media then things would be different but this media is agenda driven and corrupted ... just sayn

 

[idiom]

Well... it took three years for Obama to publish his Birth cert. not the best plan in hindsight.

 

[SisCyn]

I'd like to talk privately with someone close to the campaign about a different newsletter that I have been getting since 2008. Can someone steer me in the right direction for this? I would like to forward it privately to the campaign so that they know what is being said in it. It's anti.

 

[silus]

I think the Ron Paul campaign is naive for not trying to get ahead of this. He is introducing himself as a viable candidate to the mainstream for the first time. Yes, the first time. He does not have the luxury, as Mitt Romney may have, of acting as if previous campaigns have already answered most relevant questions. People want to know about this issue, and allowing the MSM to establish the storyline is screwing him, badly. Right or wrong, he cannot act as if he should not be answering questions regarding this. Not in this perception driven voting environment.

He needs to say something. Maybe after Iowa, but it definitely needs to be done. One short speech forcefully acknowledging the mistakes of the past and then showing who he is and what he has talked about over the past 30 years would crush this "scandal." Dismissing is an excellent tactic because it prevents the opposition from gaining strength by your acknowledgment, but we are well past that point, and the tactic will not be effective on the national level. He can't fight the MSM on this. He can beat this in states where he can campaign locally, but he's going to get crushed nationally if he doesn't do something. The Ron Paul campaign needs to wake the fuck up.

 

[Babylon]

Ron Paul said his favorite President was Grover Cleveland and I think during his campaign when his aides asked how they should deal with a scandle he had with a mistress, he told them to tell the truth. I think Ron Paul should release all of them to the public on his website and release a statement online saying that he doesn't want to hide anything from his supporters. He didn't write the material though it was sent out under his name and he doesn't want his newsletters to be characterized by a few cherry picked paragraphs so he's releasing everything to the public so they can read it and make up their own minds instead of just accepting what the MSM tells them.

Two kinds of people give a shit about the newsletters:

The first group (most Republicans, although they'd never admit it) agree wholeheartedly with the racial comments. That riot/welfare-check line is priceless.

The second group are politically correct leftist types who won't be voting for Paul anyway.

There isn't a single voter out there who did NOT vote for Paul because of some newsletter.

(I'm actually suprised that the stuff was so tame... you youngsters may not remember the pre-internet age of newsletters. But, there was some pretty outlandish stuff being mailed out back in the 1970s and 1980s. I think people took it just about as seriously at the time as they do an amateur blogger....)