They're back again…

[speciallyblend]

I know I wasn't the only one, but I was among the most vocal ones about it. You could argue there is no difference, but I think I have a pretty strong case that there is judging by all the heat and -reps I've received telling people what they didn't want to hear, that nothing they did would matter if they didn't first deal with the corporate media propaganda machine.

i am not going to say what i want to say about this campaign but it might be a lil too late now. If we do not have a game changer by feb 7th.

 

[Antwan15]

This is soooo frustrating, we need Rand!!!!! Where is Rand on this, he needs to come out and voice his disgust as well as the campaign....We cannot just take this lying down! I'm not sure what can be done, but, we gotta do somthing. Its funny because I was just thinking about this the other day and I thought to myself "wow, he did great in the debates, AND, the newsletter thing is behind us" were lookin good. idk, im just pissed!

 

[minusbear]

I could use some good talking points on this too. Pretty much everyone I talk to, these come up. They just don't believe he didn't know about them. The freeptards and restatetards are also claiming out that his story has changed on this (which it hasn't but they are twisting slight differences in his statements).

 

[phill4paul]

What years did Renae Hathaway work for him I wonder? Was it during the period in which the specific newsletters were published?

 

[minusbear]

What years did Renae Hathaway work for him I wonder? Was it during the period in which the specific newsletters were published?

Traitor to liberty or a liar (enemy of liberty)

 

[AlexMerced]

Bottom Line:

This does matter, I can tell you from people I've tried to turn into Ron Paul supporters, its a dealbreaker with the left, and those on the right use it as an excuse to confirm the idea that Ron Paul is unelectable it hurts on BOTH SIDES, and it also hurts because there hasn't been a decent response and "I hadn't read it" when there is video of his discussing the newsletters and a interview of him defending passages from 1995 makes it hard to convince people who arn't following close as we are.

This articles does more damage because it doesn't really paint Ron Paul as racist, I think the article clears him on that charge but paints him as someone who profited from racism intentionally which is a worse charge. Plus, pointing out the debt he had out of his senate run which was six figures it's easy for someone to understand how someone might act in desperation to pay something like that off and then hard to say to stop it when you see the good you do with the money elsewhere.

This is damaging stuff, doesn't hurt my opinion or enthusiasm regarding Paul, but people who casual observers will be put off by the idea that even Ron Paul succumbed to the pressures of debt.

I'm not sure what's true and what isn't and of course I realiz donderos testimony is suspect, but there is a lot of other stuff and I've heard very little in the way a plausible response...

Ron Paul is Ron Paul, and either way that doesn't change, but we just brush this off at our own peril if we are in this to win, which many are

 

[AlexMerced]

I could use some good talking points on this too. Pretty much everyone I talk to, these come up. They just don't believe he didn't know about them. The freeptards and restatetards are also claiming out that his story has changed on this (which it hasn't but they are twisting slight differences in his statements).

Actually his stories did change, when it first came up in 1995 he defended the statements and didn't deny him (a later interview he said he did this because aids said it'd be too confusing to deny them in 95), after 95 he's consistently denied it, but when the issue came out all of the sudden in his re-election campaign his response muddied the water for our attempts to defend today.

Honestly, at some point Ron will have actually tell his side of the story (and "I don't know" is no it, as much as I wish that was enough)

Being honest about what we're dealing with is not an indictment of Ron Paul, the movement, or the campaign and people who paint any desire for answers shouldn't be painted as traiters, that's the same kinda syncophantic behavior that the neo-cons used to silence us. We look immature as supporters if we can't tackle this in a productive way, period.

 

[AlexMerced]

I see that Nick Gillespie and Reason are back at it again, dredging up the newsletters and getting all offended and self righteous. I figured it was about time for them to start trotting this shit out again. Killing people, destroying liberty, ruining the economy, yeah those are pretty bad, but NOTHING is as bad as thinking and saying the wrong thing and offending people's sensibilities. Obama may be murderous thug who sends drones to kill civilians is happy to thrown hundreds of thousands of people in prison for "crimes" that have no victim, but at least he talks pretty and doesn't say anything that hurts anyone's feelings. Liberty, apparently, is great in theory, but we don't want to risk ever actually securing it. Go Reason!!! One day our grand kids will thank them for their tireless defense of politcal correctness - on pieces of toilet paper smuggled out of the gulag.

WTF, where did Nick Gilespie get brought up, in the article I just heard mention of Catos ed crane, and one person doesn't speak for all of Cato and Reason, both institutions have supports and non-supporters in their ranks that's like saying all the conspiracy theorist represent all of us... a gross generalization.

It just upsets me when we pride ourselves on our independent spirits bu result in using the same generalization and defensive smearing other use against us. We can let ourselves turn into what they are.

 

[ohgodno]

Bottom Line:

This does matter, I can tell you from people I've tried to turn into Ron Paul supporters, its a dealbreaker with the left, and those on the right use it as an excuse to confirm the idea that Ron Paul is unelectable it hurts on BOTH SIDES, and it also hurts because there hasn't been a decent response and "I hadn't read it" when there is video of his discussing the newsletters and a interview of him defending passages from 1995 makes it hard to convince people who arn't following close as we are.

This articles does more damage because it doesn't really paint Ron Paul as racist, I think the article clears him on that charge but paints him as someone who profited from racism intentionally which is a worse charge. Plus, pointing out the debt he had out of his senate run which was six figures it's easy for someone to understand how someone might act in desperation to pay something like that off and then hard to say to stop it when you see the good you do with the money elsewhere.

This is damaging stuff, doesn't hurt my opinion or enthusiasm regarding Paul, but people who casual observers will be put off by the idea that even Ron Paul succumbed to the pressures of debt.

I'm not sure what's true and what isn't and of course I realiz donderos testimony is suspect, but there is a lot of other stuff and I've heard very little in the way a plausible response...

Ron Paul is Ron Paul, and either way that doesn't change, but we just brush this off at our own peril if we are in this to win, which many are

THIS, THIS, THIS

Thankfully someone else is making sense. Must be a Brooklyn thing!!

 

[sylcfh]

They came up once in 2008 when he ran.

Before every single primary we've seen this story rehashed, with the highest volume of stories being before Iowa and NH. Ron Paul was in single digits in 2008, and now he's taking 2nd place even with this crap.

It's not working. People don't trust the media. Its effectiveness as a propaganda tool is declining.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

So, when Romney/Gingrich loses to Obama (way to throw away a golden chance by nominating a loser, GOP), can we look forward to this again in 2016?

Late 2015: "Frontrunner Rand Paul's father's name appears on the header of some questionable newsletters, CNN can confirm."

 

[AlexMerced]

So, when Romney/Gingrich loses to Obama (way to throw away a golden chance by nominating a loser, GOP), can we look forward to this again in 2016?

Late 2015: "Frontrunner Rand Paul's father's name appears on the header of some questionable newsletters, CNN can confirm."

yeah, probably, but that's bit of a harder sell

 

[Pisces]

I didn't read the article but does it say that Ron proofread the entire newsletter? I can see him proofreading just his contributions if he wasn't the editor. I don't get why the videos of him talking about the newsletters in the past are supposed to be so damning. He's never denied knowing that he had newsletters, he just denied knowing about all of the specific content. Since he was practicing medicine at the time the worst passages were written and he wasn't the editor, there's no reason to believe he proofed the pieces other people wrote or even read them at all.

 

[speciallyblend]

But no one cares about the NL's anymore. They just don't matter because the campaign handled them perfectly.

nonsense^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^hopefully you were being sarcastic, so perfectly ron paul didn't win iowa or nh.

 

[AlexMerced]

I didn't read the article but does it say that Ron proofread the entire newsletter? I can see him proofreading just his contributions if he wasn't the editor. I don't get why the videos of him talking about the newsletters in the past are supposed to be so damning. He's never denied knowing that he had newsletters, he just denied knowing about all of the specific content. Since he was practicing medicine at the time the worst passages were written and he wasn't the editor, there's no reason to believe he proofed the pieces other people wrote or even read them at all.

they are damning cause most people arn't thinking about all the details like we are, we got to stop thinking like us, and like people who don't have the investment we do in Ron Paul to see things clearly

 

[Pisces]

they are damning cause most people arn't thinking about all the details like we are, we got to stop thinking like us, and like people who don't have the investment we do in Ron Paul to see things clearly

I understand what you're saying. However, you're in New York City, I'm in Texas. I think how big a deal they are depends a lot on where you're at and the type of people you live around. And I don't live around a bunch of racists. I also have a lot of family in Nebraska, its not a big deal for them either. I think the only way this really hurts with Republicans is if people start panicking like its going to destroy the campaign.

And I don't mean this as a put down of New York City; I just don't think its very representative of the majority of people that will vote in the Republican primaries and caucuses.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm also from NYC, and can tell you NO ACTUAL BLACK PERSON I KNOW or have talked to about Paul, whether they support him or not, brings up the newsletters. The MSM uses these topics to reassert what IT thinks people should think is "damaging," not what people actually think is damaging. Just as the word "mainstream" means "establishment approved" or accepted, when used by the major media. If they decree it appropriate to rehash every aspect of a 20 year old matter, that it is that, that makes the rehashing acceptable (note they don't have this standard when it comes to the grassroots re-bringing up, say, the Obama real/photoshopped birth certificate).

When the tea party was attracting some Democrats, this was not a MSM approved development, so out they came with charges of "racism" within the movement, to scare away Democrats. The fact that no actual regular Democrats had witnessed "racism" was beside the point. So it is with the attacks on Paul. The path to overcoming the smear is to call it out for what it is, and reverse it by talking up the the effect of the drug war and foreign wars on black and brown peoples.

 

[AuH20]

Former Aides: Ron Paul Had Final Editorial Control Over Newsletter Content

My feelings. Who cares? Nothing in that newsletter was overly offensive. Maybe abit insensitive in parts but nothing abhorrent.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-ron-paul-signed-off-on-incendiary-material-in-newsletters/

[P]eople close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

 

[Gary4Liberty]

what was even actually said in these newsletters? I want to see them. They are only making themselves look like hypersensitive fools who are trying to create a story that doesnt exist. America is sick of this bs people trying to manipulate the system with fake allegations of racism. They need to go read the story of the little girl who cried wolf and see what happend to her.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That's just it. THEY WEREN'T RACIST. "Racist newsletters" is simply the meme the MSM has latched onto to describe 4-5 ascerbic/insensitive lines (of the Ann Coulter, or RPF variety) out of thousands of sentences.