ty ty ty

Cliffs: he has money riding on Paul winning Iowa. Awesome. He is also semi-endorsing Paul.

Great clip imo.

Ok so anyone have good links defending Paul against the Newsletters?

We should be ready to defend this when it does come out. I think Alawpoker is right. If it comes out now and he still wins Iowa, it'll mean very little.

It would almost be best for the campaign to push it out now while showing how dumb the charges are.

No way. Hannity just talked about it on his radio show, right? If it comes out further then he can deal with it, but there's absolutely no reason to bring it out himself.

i'd assume the campaign has a strategy for this, let's just hope it's a good 1.

I don't think you understand how an echo chamber works. Hannity can mention something offhand in the morning, the lower rated Fox News monkeys will cover it all afternoon, then Hannity gets to report in depth on the "controversy" that night.

I just don't think it's very smart for Ron Paul to go advertising it.

You don't have to go advertise it, you can go to a reporter who's been friendly to the campaign and address the issue head on saying A, B, and C. There is no story here. Move on.

That way you don't have the feeding frenzy where the press thinks they've found a skeleton in the closet. You put a press release on your website, you write why the whole thing is bogus, so when new supporters research the subject they can read what Ron Paul's defense is on it.

@Chris_Moody

5 minutes ago and already 21 retweets.

This should surprise nobody. Barr is a complete LINO.

???


I mean, in the last page of this thread we've got links to videos from both Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods, it seems like you guys should be on board with the 1996-era Paul response that there was nothing wrong with the newsletters and people need to just understand there's something wrong in America today where gays can serve openly in the military but children can't celebrate Christmas.

the 96 response or whenever exactly it was is definitely a problem

Did Paul defend those newsletters in 1996?? Care to elaborate?

A quick google search for Ron Paul Racist Newsletter is not good.

You are probably wrong. In politics this is generally known as "shining a light on your problem" or something along those lines. It allows you to push the narrative in a direction you'd prefer.

The funny part is fly acts like the newsletters themselves are really troubling. I mean, I'll agree that the perception amongst mouthbreathers who only give a **** about ******ed stuff like ZOMG ROMNEY WANTS TO BET $10K rather than actual policy positions MATTERS because that's a big percentage of voters, but we're supposedly having a higher level discourse here, aren't we?

I mean, look at fly's reaction here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...l#post26265489

(his shifty responses are especially hilarious in light of his JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION flipouts in the recent child labor thread)

Speaking of the "ZOMG 10K BET WTF" hysteria, I don't remember seeing any TV news story actually investigate whether or not romney would have won the bet had newt agreed to it. I actually am not even sure what the bet was because all the media talked about was ZOMG OUT OF TOUCH.

Most of the stories I saw said Romney would have won the bet, but Huntsman and Perry's camp say otherwise. So tie?

Nope, I've seen the Gingrich ads. I did misread the tweet though. It actually said Paul and Perry were running Romney attack ads.

https://twitter.com/#!/Wmpenn09/stat...32825144016896

i emailed john tate to see if they had a plan for the newsletter issue

WILL LET YOU KNOW IF HE RESPONDS

National Review's daily poll is:
"Have you grown more positive toward Ron Paul?"

The tally of 5,023 votes is:

Yes = 24%
No = 76%

http://www.nationalreview.com/

You know what to do.

Jfc wtf? I know I shouldn't expect too much but isolationism is tied to anti semetism? They mention Paul disagreed with Regan but never explain why he disagreed, but he disagreed with Regan so he must be wrong. The Republican cult of Regan personality is ludicrous . Left wing foreign policy is leaving other countries alone but somehow right wing domestic policy is leaving Americans alone?????? Hannity is an abject ******.

Ps I know that Paul is anti interventionist, but not isolationist but they use them inter changeably

Wait, what? How are they not troubling?

Higher level discourse about how we all need to move to rural areas before the animals who overrun our cities rape our wives and steal our televisions? What the hell are you talking about? It's not even noon yet, bro.

I don't think you guys fully understand that some people(namely me) think that Ron Paul is an embarrassment to the libertarian movement. The way he plays to the goldbug/neo-Confederate/conspiritard/white Christian nationalist wings of the electorate hurt the chances that his good ideas about the drug war and foreign policy will be implemented.

The box hypothetical, the idea that I have to take whites only lunch counters as a package deal with decriminalization of marijuana, is a pretty neat summation of that point.