Just in case they need a future excuse to throw out the results...
right on schedule
I figured they would go for the same old racist newsletter tripe (The Weekly Standard already has their hit piece out), but the Austin NAACP President has already went on record as saying Paul is not a racist, and is the only Republican candidate who is addressing black criminal justice inequality. So uh ... guess that kinda undercuts that attack.
you know I saw this article and the first thing I thought was...I'll bet they're saying this to discredit RP's lead in Iowa.
Wow...you guys are out there. I'm not even a big Fox News fan...(I do watch them some though) and I don't see the connection. Maybe you should take off the tin foil hat.
(12-19-2011 02:30 PM)Max Power Wrote: It's not about current polling but it's an excuse some might use if Paul pulls off the win, as he's apparently now poised to do.
In an ironic twist, those claiming a hack job will be the tin foil hatters.
Doubtful...
For people who claim to loathe Fox news you people spend more time there than anyone I know.
(12-19-2011 02:30 PM)Max Power Wrote: It's not about current polling but it's an excuse some might use if Paul pulls off the win, as he's apparently now poised to do.
In an ironic twist, those claiming a hack job will be the tin foil hatters.
Doubtful...
For people who claim to loathe Fox news you people spend more time there than anyone I know.
It's forced upon me as conversing with 2 out of 3 people in the SC GOP is like pulling the cord on an O'Reilly/Hannity talking point speak and say.
*pulls cord* The cow says... moooooooooooooooo
*pulls cord* Paul is isolationist ... unelecttttaaaaableeeeeeeeeeeeee
(12-19-2011 02:30 PM)Max Power Wrote: It's not about current polling but it's an excuse some might use if Paul pulls off the win, as he's apparently now poised to do.
In an ironic twist, those claiming a hack job will be the tin foil hatters.
Doubtful...
For people who claim to loathe Fox news you people spend more time there than anyone I know.
It's forced upon me as conversing with 2 out of 3 people in the SC GOP is like pulling the cord on an O'Reilly/Hannity talking point speak and say.
*pulls cord* The cow says... moooooooooooooooo
*pulls cord* Paul is isolationist ... unelecttttaaaaableeeeeeeeeeeeee
I guess if Obama got elected with no business experience and a resume of community organizer well I just guess Paul could get elected too!
Just in case they need a future excuse to throw out the results...
right on schedule
I figured they would go for the same old racist newsletter tripe (The Weekly Standard already has their hit piece out), but the Austin NAACP President has already went on record as saying Paul is not a racist, and is the only Republican candidate who is addressing black criminal justice inequality. So uh ... guess that kinda undercuts that attack.
Why shouldn't Paul be questioned on this? Numerous publications with his name on them have published outlandish conspiracy theories and racist articles. Why is it not legitimate to question that?
Did he have no editoral control? Did he just make a mistake in allowing it to be put in there? Was it done without his knowledge?
These are all legitimate questions that should be asked and it's not out of bounds to do so.
Just in case they need a future excuse to throw out the results...
right on schedule
I figured they would go for the same old racist newsletter tripe (The Weekly Standard already has their hit piece out), but the Austin NAACP President has already went on record as saying Paul is not a racist, and is the only Republican candidate who is addressing black criminal justice inequality. So uh ... guess that kinda undercuts that attack.
Why shouldn't Paul be questioned on this? Numerous publications with his name on them have published outlandish conspiracy theories and racist articles. Why is it not legitimate to question that?
Did he have no editoral control? Did he just make a mistake in allowing it to be put in there? Was it done without his knowledge?
These are all legitimate questions that should be asked and it's not out of bounds to do so.
I agree, he needs to address this more. How involved was he? If he didn't write it, he did read it, didn't he? I mean, if there was a newsletter with my name on it I know I'd at least read them. If he did, why didn't he stop it?
Just in case they need a future excuse to throw out the results...
right on schedule
I figured they would go for the same old racist newsletter tripe (The Weekly Standard already has their hit piece out), but the Austin NAACP President has already went on record as saying Paul is not a racist, and is the only Republican candidate who is addressing black criminal justice inequality. So uh ... guess that kinda undercuts that attack.
Why shouldn't Paul be questioned on this? Numerous publications with his name on them have published outlandish conspiracy theories and racist articles. Why is it not legitimate to question that?
Did he have no editoral control? Did he just make a mistake in allowing it to be put in there? Was it done without his knowledge?
These are all legitimate questions that should be asked and it's not out of bounds to do so.
I agree, he needs to address this more. How involved was he? If he didn't write it, he did read it, didn't he? I mean, if there was a newsletter with my name on it I know I'd at least read them. If he did, why didn't he stop it?
He addressed the newsletter stuff four years ago. He accepted moral responsibility for it as it is, at the end of the day, the newsletter with his name on it. He said, multiple times, he didn't write it, nor does he have regular responsibilities editing the paper. It was published though, and folks are going to believe what they want to believe.
Just in case they need a future excuse to throw out the results...
right on schedule
I figured they would go for the same old racist newsletter tripe (The Weekly Standard already has their hit piece out), but the Austin NAACP President has already went on record as saying Paul is not a racist, and is the only Republican candidate who is addressing black criminal justice inequality. So uh ... guess that kinda undercuts that attack.
Here is a guy who knows his stuff going on Hannity to defend Ron Paul:
Quote:Iowa President
PPP (D)
Paul 23
Romney 20
Gingrich 14
Perry 10
Bachmann 10
Santorum 10
Huntsman 4
Cain
Paul +3.0
Iowa President
Insider Advantage
Paul 24
Romney 18
Gingrich 13
Perry 16
Bachmann 10
Santorum 3
Huntsman 4
Cain
Paul +6.0
The big advantage for Paul over most in Iowa is that he has actually built an organization that can GOTV. Wherever Paul is polling going into the Caucus, you can expect his % in the actual vote to be 1-5% higher than the polling. Romney has "secretly" been spending tons of money on phone banks and GOTV operations in Iowa as well so his % should be a few points higher too.
Proof that liberals are going after him just as hard. Towards the middle of this show the host uses the quotes from the newsletter acting as if Ron Paul said them himself with a quick preface of "We can't know if he wrote this or if someone wrote it for him."
right on schedule
![[Image: OlgYU.png]](http://i.imgur.com/OlgYU.png)
