*VIDEO* Elise Jordan fmr C. Rice Speechwriter and NSC member shows Paul some love on MSNBC

[nbruno322]

Elise Jordan is a New York-based writer who frequently travels to Afghanistan. She served as a director for communications in the National Security Council from 2008-09 and was a speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Good stuff!

 

[RipperNT]

Really wondered why MSNBC shows get less viewership then most Public Access shows and with hosts like that now I understand why! I've always liked Elise Jordan just because she actually thinks! These people are your typical super liberals who are uppity and have an IQ of around 85 but get in the same collectives and act like they are the most entitled people on Earth. Loved the Newsletters being Disqualifying! Think Ron Paul's Skeletons are a hell of allot Racist then Obama's Anti-Americana garbage. That is more disqualifying then some dis proven garbage from two decades ago!

 

[LawnWake]

I'm sorry but...

..omnomnomnomnom >.>

 

[steph3n]

I think the last name of Kumar on a votolatino site is a bit on the humor side

I have lots of indian friends with the name Kumar, and never once associated with latino in any way!

Is she married to a Kumar, or mother is Latino?


ok i found it, she married Raj Kumar

Cool!

 

[0zzy]

Wow, she's amazing ! haha. I almost felt uncomfortable because she talked so much about Paul that she almost seemed, well, Pro-Paul. hahaha. It was just so odd for my ears to hear on MSNBC so much positives about Paul that it was uncomfortable.

 

[islather]

she was nice, she needs to be on t.v more!

 

[steph3n]

She has a number of pro-Paul tweets, mostly about FP. Quite telling from someone on the NSC...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council

For those that don't realize what kind of position that is, it is very powerful in the executive branch, moreso in the last 12 years than ever before.

 

[steph3n]

Double post, RPF server gone mad.

 

[nbruno322]

Didn't even know who Elise Jordan was before this. We should reach out to her and see if she would endorse and speak more for him on his behalf.

 

[AlexAmore]

Smartest one at the table was the one cute blonde.

I love how the guy says mismanaging a newsletter is disqualifying. ANYONE can manage a newsletter. That doesn't mean anyone can be president. LOL he was a freaking doctor which means he's 100x smarter than you.

 

[LawnWake]

ANYONE can manage a newsletter. That doesn't mean anyone can be president.

Wait hold on... what? Seeing as Ron Paul mismanaged a newsletter... which he did, and anyone can manage a newsletter... why would we trust him to manage a presidential administration?

Like it or not, it was a fair assessment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disqualifying, but it's a valid criticism. People here tend to worship the ground Paul walks on and think he can do no wrong. But if you have a newsletter under your name and make money off of it, you should at the very least read the damn thing before it's released. If you can't, don't bother publishing a newsletter.

His unwillingness to figure out who did it (he knows, he's just trying to protect them from media scrutiny) really is an achilles heal. Not as bad as the media hoped, but enough to smear him to suppress his momentum.

 

[AlexAmore]

Wait hold on... what? Seeing as Ron Paul mismanaged a newsletter... which he did, and anyone can manage a newsletter... why would we trust him to manage a presidential administration?

Like it or not, it was a fair assessment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disqualifying, but it's a valid criticism. People here tend to worship the ground Paul walks on and think he can do no wrong. But if you have a newsletter under your name and make money off of it, you should at the very least read the damn thing before it's released. If you can't, don't bother publishing a newsletter.

His unwillingness to figure out who did it (he knows, he's just trying to protect them from media scrutiny) really is an achilles heal. Not as bad as the media hoped, but enough to smear him to suppress his momentum.

Because not everyone is a doctor running a practice at the same time. A lot of people like to outsource work and automate things so they can worry about more important tasks like saving people's lives.

Bottom line is everyone makes a mistake. Even Mitt Romney failed at times when he was managing companies. I don't hold that against him for one second. In fact I would say that he's more qualified to be president because of those failures than if he didn't do anything in that realm at all.

This society we live in where everyone needs to succeed and failure is frowned upon is BS and why so many people don't reach their best because now they're afraid of the inevitable failure that they will meet in the process. All thanks to people like the above poster that thinks this is a valid criticism.

 

[steph3n]

Wait hold on... what? Seeing as Ron Paul mismanaged a newsletter... which he did, and anyone can manage a newsletter... why would we trust him to manage a presidential administration?

Like it or not, it was a fair assessment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disqualifying, but it's a valid criticism. People here tend to worship the ground Paul walks on and think he can do no wrong. But if you have a newsletter under your name and make money off of it, you should at the very least read the damn thing before it's released. If you can't, don't bother publishing a newsletter.

His unwillingness to figure out who did it (he knows, he's just trying to protect them from media scrutiny) really is an achilles heal. Not as bad as the media hoped, but enough to smear him to suppress his momentum.

Does google read every blogger post first?

 

[LawnWake]

Because not everyone is a doctor running a practice at the same time. A lot of people like to outsource work and automate things so they can worry about more important tasks like saving people's lives.

Bottom line is everyone makes a mistake. Even Mitt Romney failed at times when he was managing companies. I don't hold that against him for one second. In fact I would say that he's more qualified to be president because of those failures than if he didn't do anything in that realm at all.

This society we live in where everyone needs to succeed and failure is frowned upon is BS and why so many people don't reach their best because now they're afraid of the inevitable failure that they will meet in the process. All thanks to people like the above poster that thinks this is a valid criticism.

You live in a society where everyone is a winner and no one's a loser. Americans, individual Americans, tend, on average, to think more highly of their academic accomplishments compared to, let's say, Europeans, while Americans score a lot lower. And that mindset is dominating this place. It's not about optimism or positivity, it's about honesty. And honestly, Ron Paul's defense of the newsletters is terrible. And while I disagree about the fiasco being disqualifying, the host made a fair point (also besides the point that a business is subject to market pressure and can therefore fail, while the sole responsibility of the content of Ron Paul's newsletters lies with him).

Yes, everyone makes mistakes... and Ron Paul isn't taking responsibility for it. If he didn't have the time to read his own newsletters, which is also fair, he shouldn't have put them out. Now he's put them out, but he hasn't done anything himself to discredit himself from writing them.

I so wish it would've been a Romney or Perry newsletter instead of Paul. We would've been on that like dung beetles on elephant crap. "Oh I disavow them, I have no idea who wrote them, I was too busy doing other things. But you know, I really like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks!"

Come on. Just because we love the guy (and I do and there's very few celebrities I respect as much as I respect him), doesn't mean we have to turn into drooling 4 year olds waiting in line to get on Santa's lap at the mini-mall.

Does google read every blogger post first?

Yeah, Google most definitely claims authorship of all of their search results. That truly is the point of Google and you've presented a very valid analog.

 

[blabam]

That "dude" makes me want to vote for Santorum

 

[Dsylexic]

Wait hold on... what? Seeing as Ron Paul mismanaged a newsletter... which he did, and anyone can manage a newsletter... why would we trust him to manage a presidential administration?

Like it or not, it was a fair assessment. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disqualifying, but it's a valid criticism. People here tend to worship the ground Paul walks on and think he can do no wrong. But if you have a newsletter under your name and make money off of it, you should at the very least read the damn thing before it's released. If you can't, don't bother publishing a newsletter.

His unwillingness to figure out who did it (he knows, he's just trying to protect them from media scrutiny) really is an achilles heal. Not as bad as the media hoped, but enough to smear him to suppress his momentum.

listen,it is YOU who needs a perspective.there were 240 newsletters of which 9 had racist content.that s 3.7%.and if you check paragrpah wise,the ratio is something like 0.03%. that is better than the accuracy of a laser guided missile.it is better than GE's product failure rate.it is better than six sigma.it is better than most hi tech equipment failure rate.
so you expect a full time MD who had a successful,thriving practice, to be a super-editor too?

it is you who is demanding inhuman infalliability(or unfalliability) from dr paul.

 

[steph3n]

in case you don't know Paul may not have known the author, he may not have been protecting someone. Rockwell likely did know the author, and it wasn't himself.

It was James B Powell.

For whatever it matters, and some of the articles even had HIS name on them.

The guy at the new republic gave this info up to a small time tv reporter just recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GWff8ay5v4

 

[Student Of Paulism]

Ok, so tell me, if i go to Sean Hannity's forum right now and post a bunch of racist crap on it, is that Hannity's fault for not 'reading and managing his forum' that HAS HIS NAME AND BRAND ON IT!? I mean, yea, Sean is a busy guy doing radio and tv shows and doesn't have time to read every single post on his forum, right? So lets say someone googles something, and my post comes in his/her results, they click it, and boom, they read all of my racist stuff, close the page and say 'OMGZORS!! SEAN HANNITY, HE ADVUHCATIN TEH RACISM ON HIS FOHRUMZ!!'

And please don't tell me its NOT the same thing. HIS NAME IS ON IT!! Sean is just as busy as Ron and doesnt have the time to check his forums for every damn thing said, and his admins also wont be able to do that either, no different than editors in Newspapers.

To the one's here saying he didn't do enough, how do you figure that!? What do you want the guy to do, cartwheels and backflips saying he didn't write them? For starters, if the cockblock and scumfuck media actually took the time to look into his past and seen just how anti-rascist he is, they would realize that and not bother, but they dont do this because ya know, that would show the truth, can't have that now Ron said all he could. He didn't write them, he disavows them, and YES, he did say here and there that he took responsibility and should have done a better job at managing what was said and who was editing them. The only gripes ill give anyone, is he should have said that a bit more in some interviews so more people would be aware of it. I also agree he never should have 'walked out' on the CNN ho-bag that day or showed he was upset and should have just went along with it til she was done.

Ron releasing the name of the writer too, is also stupid and solves nothing. If the guy denies it, then what? Do you have an idea how horrible that will make Ron look, and that he is trying to pawn the shit off on someone else? How about thinking before saying stuff like this? Uhgg. No one is ever going to fess up to it. Either they take Ron's word for it based on his life, deeds, and actions that go against all of that crap, or they dont.

But cmon, you are seriously going to agree with that idiot that he is DISQUALIFIED for a 20 fucking year old NL? It was a mistake. Shit like that happens sometimes. No other candidate has the record he does, and no, NONE of them are perfect, but Ron sure as hell comes close!

 

[LawnWake]

listen,it is YOU who needs a perspective.there were 240 newsletters of which 9 had racist content.that s 3.7%.and if you check paragrpah wise,the ratio is something like 0.03%. that is better than the accuracy of a laser guided missile.it is better than GE's product failure rate.it is better than six sigma.it is better than most hi tech equipment failure rate.
so you expect a full time MD who had a successful,thriving practice, to be a super-editor too?

it is you who is demanding inhuman infalliability(or unfalliability) from dr paul.

Firstly, these these were 240 newsletters, released under his own name, over a span of 3 decades. It's not like they came out within a year.

And no I'm expecting him to take responsibility for what happened (and you don't do it by just saying that you take responsibility for it, actions speak louder than words). Yeah, he made a mistake and went in way over his own head by publishing newsletter he claims to haven't had time for and people make mistakes. But what you do when someone accuses you of something is figure out exactly what happened and who did what and lead the accusers into their direction.

I love how people here say they champion critical thinking, but when someone's critical of a defense like 'didn't write them and I don't feel like figuring out who did it, btw I like MLK' all hell breaks loose.

 

[steph3n]

Firstly, these these were 240 newsletters, released under his own name, over a span of 3 decades. It's not like they came out within a year.

And no I'm expecting him to take responsibility for what happened (and you don't do it by just saying that you take responsibility for it, actions speak louder than words). Yeah, he made a mistake and went in way over his own head by publishing newsletter he claims to haven't had time for and people make mistakes. But what you do when someone accuses you of something is figure out exactly what happened and who did what and lead the accusers into their direction.

I love how people here say they champion critical thinking, but when someone's critical of a defense like 'didn't write them and I don't feel like figuring out who did it, btw I like MLK' all hell breaks loose.

You are just derailing a thread now, move along please.