Ron Paul on CNN 8am ET (12/20/11) - Official Thread

[mconder]

I think he was about to say at the end, why is it when Newt is ahead in the polls all you guys do is gush over them. I'm the one who has to expose Newt's skellies.

 

[liveandletlive]

so does CNN want the list of the newsletter people from Ron Paul?

 

[All Ways]

We've been through this in 2008. The newsletters are a distraction. Last time Dr. Paul got sucker punched by the media over this just before Iowa (like the day before) and he wasn't as prepared. That interview was well handled. Besides obviously being tired and probably irritable as a result, the responses downplayed the newsletters as ancient history, not his words, not his beliefs and that's exactly what you want to defuse the situation. When a bully doesn't get the reaction they want eventually they move on. By the time we get to NH everyone will know about this, it will be history unless the campaign allows it to become an issue. This takes the ammunition away for future states as the national media can't continue to ask the same question over and over and makes it a lesser issue when his national campaign starts against Obama.

Smoooth, good play.

 

[specsaregood]

Why is Ron defending Lew Rockwell so much???
This thing won't destroy Rockwell, what does he have to lose???

Rockwell says he didn't write them, are you calling him a liar? The only people that have said he wrote them are political enemies of both he and Paul.

 

[ZanZibar]

"Melonhead" the Keynesian is awful. He makes me want to throw things at the TV.

 

[Publicani]

Would you care much if he wrote them? I know I wouldn't, I would still vote for him.

Here's the reason I am asking this question. The story has legs because it has a mystery in it: who wrote that? One way to stop the story is to take the responsibility for what was written and to say that even though I didn't write them, I was the publisher and the buck stops here. And that's why I don't really care who wrote them, I should have been more careful in checking the publication. Then there's no story.

The risk is that some people would say if he takes the responsibility, I can't vote for him. That's why I asked the question at the beginning - trying to estimate the damage of this approach.

My opinion is that people would relate to it, because it's not a question of racism anymore, but of a business mistake, and there was pressure - the newsletters by definition should have been timely, so there was not much time to check everything. plus he had a job, he was a doctor who often had to work days and nights.

Also, in a way, Ron already said all this. The question is just repackaging, and saying it briefly and convincingly. HOW to say all this is as important and requires as much preparation as WHAT exactly to say. This is a final obstacle. Maybe traditional tools like focus groups and watching your performance on video are needed in preparation for the answer.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Hell yeah I would care if he wrote them. Do you even know what kind of stuff was in these specific newsletters? If you could vote for a candidate who wrote these things then you are strange. However, I know that RP did not, but he really needs to say who did or they will keep bringing this up. No matter how many times he says he didn't do it they won't stop until he says who did and the media will constantly berate him about it.

 

[specsaregood]

Hell yeah I would care if he wrote them. Do you even know what kind of stuff was in these specific newsletters? If you could vote for a candidate who wrote these things then you are strange. However, I know that RP did not, but he really needs to say who did or they will keep bringing this up. No matter how many times he says he didn't do it they won't stop until he says who did and the media will constantly berate him about it.

Nothing in them is really that horrendous especially in light of the era.

 

[WD-NY]

We don't know if it was Rockwell who wrote it. So I don't put a lot of though in your question because it's based just on speculations, not proven facts.

Are you denying that Rockwell is 1 of 6 ghostwriters?

Who are the other 5?

I think anyone who thinks Ron saying "I don't know who wrote it" = handling this controversy well is being naive at best.

That dog/answer ain't going to hunt. We didn't just raise $5+ million dollars in 2 weeks for Ron to throw it all away over things he didn't even write!

Continuing to play the 'it doesn't matter who wrote them, Ive never said those things' card or paint over who specifically wrote the offensive passages is akin to treating the symptoms and ignoring the root cause of the disease (which is one of ron's core ideas).

 

[coastie]

Hell yeah I would care if he wrote them. Do you even know what kind of stuff was in these specific newsletters? If you could vote for a candidate who wrote these things then you are strange. However, I know that RP did not, but he really needs to say who did or they will keep bringing this up. No matter how many times he says he didn't do it they won't stop until he says who did and the media will constantly berate him about it.

Racism=action. Sociology 101

There is NOTHING in those newsletters that was RACIST.

Politically Incorrect? Yes. But fuck PC, it has been an unmitigated disaster in this country.

 

[coastie]

Are you denying that Rockwell is 1 of 6 ghostwriters?

Who are the other 5?

I think anyone who thinks Ron saying "I don't know who wrote it" = handling this controversy well is being naive at best.

That dog/answer ain't going to hunt. We didn't just raise $5+ million dollars in 2 weeks for Ron to throw it all away over things he didn't even write!

Continuing to play the 'it doesn't matter who wrote them, Ive never said those things' card or paint over who specifically wrote the offensive passages is akin to treating the symptoms and ignoring the root cause of the disease (which is one of ron's core ideas).

We got through it four years ago when it was addressed, how/why is different now? Because you're just discovering them?


And since when does 1:6 = guilty??? Newt, is that you?

 

[freejack]

We got through it four years ago when it was addressed, how/why is different now? Because you're just discovering them?


And since when does 1:6 = guilty??? Newt, is that you?

It's different because Ron is now the frontrunner. They will use this to destroy him and they will not stop until he 1) drops out or 2) wins (despite the accusations which will be difficult).

 

[FreedomRings]

Ron comes across like this (annoyed, proud and arrogant):

"It's obvious (look at all the speeches I've ever given) and logical (I had no time, I was busy with my medical practice) that I didn't write these newsletters, so if you really believe that I did write them then you must be an idiot with an agenda to distract people from the real issues."

while he should come across like this (humble, conciliatory and confident):

"20 years ago, I had a difficult and very busy time in my medical practice. As a result I couldn't find the time to pay as much attention to these newsletters as I definitively should have. I accept full responsibility for what happened and I apologize for all the offense and concern they might have caused. And while I do feel betrayed by my editors and writers at the time, I don't want them to be exposed over this issue because ultimately it was my own fault, and believe me, I learned my lesson. I now get up 30 minutes early each day to review everything that goes out in my name, not once but twice. And when it comes to my speeches, I simply say what's on my mind... no speechwriters or teleprompters here at the Ron Paul campaign. You know what, ultimately it's up to the people (of Iowa, etc..) to make up their own minds about all of that. As for me personally, I'm much more concerned about the future than about the past, and I'm confident I can offer hard-hitting solutions to the important challenges that are facing us today. If Americans reject me because of something I didn't write 20 years ago, so be it. But if they want me to be their President, cut 1 trillion dollars, restore liberty, rein in the Federal Reserve, and bring our troops back home, I'm ready to serve."

 

[sailingaway]

Lew Rockwell just has to step forward and confess already.

It was 20 years ago, and it wasn't Ron and they weren't calling for violence or anything....

Bringing another person in would just give the story more legs. This is old news. Gingrich HIMSELF said Spanish was 'the language of the ghetto' and that is as bad as the worst thing in the newsletters -- and Ron never wrote them.

 

[WD-NY]

Would you care much if he wrote them? I know I wouldn't, I would still vote for him.

Here's the reason I am asking this question. The story has legs because it has a mystery in it: who wrote that? One way to stop the story is to take the responsibility for what was written and to say that even though I didn't write them, I was the publisher and the buck stops here. And that's why I don't really care who wrote them, I should have been more careful in checking the publication. Then there's no story.

The risk is that some people would say if he takes the responsibility, I can't vote for him. That's why I asked the question at the beginning - trying to estimate the damage of this approach.

My opinion is that people would relate to it, because it's not a question of racism anymore, but of a business mistake, and there was pressure - the newsletters by definition should have been timely, so there was not much time to check everything. plus he had a job, he was a doctor who often had to work days and nights.

Also, in a way, Ron already said all this. The question is just repackaging, and saying it briefly and convincingly. HOW to say all this is as important and requires as much preparation as WHAT exactly to say. This is a final obstacle. Maybe traditional tools like focus groups and watching your performance on video are needed in preparation for the answer.

I think you nailed 1 prong of the 3 pronged response that would bury this issue once and for all.

Prong 2 = writer of said passages comes forward

Prong 3 = Ron gives a formal speech/press-conference-without-questions (ala Obama Rev. Wright) that re-contextualizes/re-frames the 'controversy'/attacks/allegations into a narrative that Paul can control and perhaps even use to his advantage (lemonade from lemons ftw)

 

[WilliamC]

It's real simple now for Ron Paul. All he has to do is let the media attack him and keep himself from being boxed into their questions.

Speak directly to us, the American people, every time you get the chance too do so, and dismiss irrelevant, misleading questions as the nonsense they are and tell us what needs to be done to fix things.

This is Ron Paul's moment, he just needs to keep his cool and repeat his talking points at every opportunity.

The fact that they are the truth will take care of the rest for him.

 

[WD-NY]

We got through it four years ago when it was addressed, how/why is different now? Because you're just discovering them?


And since when does 1:6 = guilty??? Newt, is that you?

We got through them? How? By coming in 5th in Iowa and NH? By Ron having to return to Texas to defend his house seat.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[undergroundrr]

There is NOTHING in those newsletters that was RACIST.

Politically Incorrect? Yes.

While I agree somewhat, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the answer MSM *wants* to get out of Ron Paul. If he actually tried for a second to claim that the Kirchick extracts are accurate when put in context, they could spin that "admission of guilt" that he approved of them into a firestorm. I think he's handling it perfectly - admit bad oversight and disavow these "small-minded thoughts."

 

[muh_roads]

Wow notice how the guy didn't let him finish his talking point with the war on drugs to prove he isn't racist. Ending a program that tears apart black families is the most anti-racist position you can have.

The media exposes themselves every day on who they really serve.

 

[sailingaway]

I think you nailed 1 prong of the 3 pronged response that would bury this issue once and for all.

Prong 2 = writer of said passages comes forward

Prong 3 = Ron gives a formal speech/press-conference-without-questions (ala Obama Rev. Wright) that re-contextualizes/re-frames the 'controversy'/attacks/allegations into a narrative that Paul can control and perhaps even use to his advantage (lemonade from lemons ftw)

This makes me wonder whose side you are on. Bringing in another person just gives more fodder to the story, as they go back over every joke that person told and how close they were to Ron etc etc. Don't feed the trolls. They know it wasn't Ron, they just have NOTHING else to hit him with.