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

[sailingaway]

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.

this

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Hey noobs, let's say Rockwell wrote them. If Ron says that, the media will take a gander at LewRockwell.com and see Ron Paul literally plastered all over the website, they'll find that Ron reads LRC and Mises first thing in the morning, is to this day friends with Lew, etc.

Not only that, but LvMI would be wrecked.

Both Ron and Rockwell deny writing the newsletters. Let it be.

 

[WilliamC]

Rothbard and Blumburt are is dead, let them take the credit, and Lew and Jeffrey need to step up and get it done.

Simple as that.

 

[Publicani]

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)

3 is a good idea. 2 - I would strongly disagree because it'll add the fuel to the story and will keep it alive. What if the real guy will deny that he wrote it and will start giving his interviews? What if they find some other politically incorrect quotes, that maybe Ron wrote? The main problem is not the story, but the mystery involved. You should aim at the mystery, not to provide new fresh details, but just admitting that it was a mistake, and if after all you read about me, and heard me, you are still not happy ask me any questions on race or any issues now. Not on what has been written 20 years ago by somebody else.

 

[musicmax]

Both Ron and Rockwell deny writing the newsletters.

They didn't write themselves. Rockwell knows who wrote them, even in the unlikely event he didn't write them himself. [/QUOTE]

Let it be.

Unresolved scandals end candidacies. Resolved scandals can be mitigated. Do you want this candidacy to end?

 

[musicmax]

3 is a good idea. 2 - I would strongly disagree because it'll add the fuel to the story and will keep it alive. What if the real guy will deny that he wrote it and will start giving his interviews? What if they find some other politically incorrect quotes, that maybe Ron wrote? The main problem is not the story, but the mystery involved. You should aim at the mystery, not to provide new fresh details, but just admitting that it was a mistake, and if after all you read about me, and heard me, you are still not happy ask me any questions on race or any issues now. Not on what has been written 20 years ago by somebody else.

+++++++++++++++++REP

 

[musicmax]

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 WASN'T "addressed". "Addressed" means identifying the author. Nothing less. Unless the author is identified, it is NOT addressed. Period.

 

[sailingaway]

Not having come from the libertarian side of things, I really get the feeling there are a lot of libertarians who hate Rockwell more than they care if Ron wins, and just want him dragged through the mud.

Rockwell does nothing for me, but even if he is muddy, I don't want him splattering on Ron.

Ron is tolerant, not racist.

 

[undergroundrr]

From this list of "suspects" it is fairly obvious that Lew Rockwell...

All this told me is that Rockwell might have nobly agreed to take the fall. Even though it was multiple writers and it probably IS impossible to figure out who wrote what.

I work in a company where newsletters are written by a fairly isolated guy in a marketing office, against a tight deadline. He just tries to cobble something together and get it to the printer. Sometimes management reads the newsletter weeks after it's published. Almost never before it is.

I hand-wrung myself to lethargy about the un-PC newsletters back in 07-08. I recommend people come to terms with it as an unfortunate lack of oversight. It shows that Ron Paul entrusted people to make responsible decisions without micromanagement. Some of them made mistakes. There's an interesting parallel in his drug war policy - let people make decisions for themselves. It's okay if a few of them make mistakes sometimes.

 

[musicmax]

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.

Until the newsletter author is identified, he allows himself to be boxed in.
Until he categorically says no third party run, he allows himself to be boxed in.
Until he starts pivoting questions about the other candidates into advocacy answers about himself, he allows himself to be boxed in.

He is getting MUCH better. This CNN interview was a step in right direction. But the journey continues.

 

[sailingaway]

Hey noobs, let's say Rockwell wrote them. If Ron says that, the media will take a gander at LewRockwell.com and see Ron Paul literally plastered all over the website, they'll find that Ron reads LRC and Mises first thing in the morning, is to this day friends with Lew, etc.

Not only that, but LvMI would be wrecked.

Both Ron and Rockwell deny writing the newsletters. Let it be.

Ron once said he read Rockwell every morning. That was before I ever heard of him. I sincerely doubt he has time now.

 

[sailingaway]

Until the newsletter author is identified, he allows himself to be boxed in.
Until he categorically says no third party run, he allows himself to be boxed in.
Until he starts pivoting questions about the other candidates into advocacy answers about himself, he allows himself to be boxed in.

He is getting MUCH better. This CNN interview was a step in right direction. But the journey continues.

again, this calling for giving the story more legs by throwing a media goat for slaughter is not in Ron's best interests. I could see someone wanting to cause him trouble calling for it, though.

 

[Publicani]

It WASN'T "addressed". "Addressed" means identifying the author. Nothing less. Unless the author is identified, it is NOT addressed. Period.

"period" is not an argument. Example: The identification of the author will generate much more news. Period.

 

[musicmax]

Not having come from the libertarian side of things, I really get the feeling there are a lot of libertarians who hate Rockwell more than they care if Ron wins, and just want him dragged through the mud.

Rockwell does nothing for me, but even if he is muddy, I don't want him splattering on Ron.

Ron is tolerant, not racist.

I am totally ambivalent to Rockwell other than the fact that he can fix this and that he hasn't done so. I don't give a damn about the Koch/Rothbard and Cato/Mises fights and if I did I'd probably come down more on the latter's side anyway.

All I know is that festering scandals kill candidacies and resolved scandals can be mitigated. This one festers until Rockwell speaks.

 

[musicmax]

"period" is not an argument. Example: The identification of the author will generate much more news. Period.

The identification of the author will last one news cycle. The cat is already out of the bag. We can capture the cat or allow the cat to run free.

 

[sailingaway]

The identification of the author will last one news cycle. The cat is already out of the bag. We can capture the cat or allow the cat to run free.

supporters have no reason to put more pressure on Ron over this issue. We know he didn't write them. Who cares who did, 20 years ago?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rothbard and Blumburt are is dead, let them take the credit, and Lew and Jeffrey need to step up and get it done.

Simple as that.

Yeah dude, blame Rothbard, then find out that he was Ron Paul's mentor, friend, and helped run his 1988 Libertarian campaign. Also, Rothbard is the father of modern libertarianism. Horrible idea.

Not having come from the libertarian side of things, I really get the feeling there are a lot of libertarians who hate Rockwell more than they care if Ron wins, and just want him dragged through the mud.

Rockwell does nothing for me, but even if he is muddy, I don't want him splattering on Ron.

Ron is tolerant, not racist.

LRC's the number 1 libertarian website, and without Rockwell, Tom Woods would be a nobody Russell Kirk devotee, Gary North would be banging away on a typewriter about how gays need to be stoned to death, and numerous other paleo and libertarian minds would have none of the exposure they enjoy today. People need to get a grip. Lew has done a lot for the movement; he even gave up his tax exempt status to promote Ron on LRC. An anarchist, bowing to the government to promote Ron Paul. Let that sink in to the people who think Lew doesn't support Ron - as if Lew's multiple daily postings praising Ron's every action weren't enough.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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)

"Prong 3" would serve to do nothing but fuel the issue and pump it up into something even bigger for the media to beat RP over the head with.

Given that RP's treatment in the media has rarely if ever been anything but extraordinarily & contemptibly shabby, I am utterly baffled as to how anyone could think that this could be a wise or successful strategy.

If RP does what is suggested here, it will be the media - NOT Ron Paul - that will do any "re-contextualizing" or "re-framing."
It will be the media - NOT Ron Paul - that will control the "narrative."
It will be the media - NOT Ron Paul - that will use this to their advantage.

And in particular, a "walk-on/make-statement/take-no-questions/walk-off" performance would, I am sure, be greeted with an especially delighted relish from the knife-sharpeners.

In short, I can think of no better way to proclaim that there is "blood in the water" than by doing something like this. (Obama was able to get away with it because he was a media darling, a pro-establishment hack and someone the system found to be thouroughly palatable - in other words, the exact opposite of Ron Paul).

 

[unknown]

Until the newsletter author is identified, he allows himself to be boxed in.

I dont agree. I think this has to be treated for what it is: an election time distraction. The head of the Austin NAACP has come to his defense on the issue and he was also the only Republican on stage who was against racial profiling.

Reply to premeditated attack questions, move on.

Until he categorically says no third party run, he allows himself to be boxed in.

Dont agree. The media needs to stop hounding him, the goal being to induce doubt in the voter. Maybe he simply needs to say that he's been asked enough times, "please move on".

Until he starts pivoting questions about the other candidates into advocacy answers about himself, he allows himself to be boxed in.

He is getting MUCH better. This CNN interview was a step in right direction. But the journey continues.

As you said, he's doing better.

 

[unknown]

Was it just me or did Ron just Pimp Slap that guy?

I have yet to see the video but its no secret that Dr. Paul has a very very strong pimp hand.