Ron Paul getting "Swiftboated"

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

...But the ones I got directly from Ron Paul's office were nothing at all like these ones CNN is writing about now. I suspect Ron Paul had nothing to do with them, though I could be wrong.

I caught just a bit of Ron Paul being interviewed last night, and he was stating the same thing. (I'm paraphrasing)...that they were written by someone else, that's NOT what he's all about, and his record "speaks for itself", and he dismissed them. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it just seems to me that much about politics these days is simply distorting the truth, spin control, etc. Damn...I feel sleazy just typing about it

[hytem]

The Democrats don't do dirty tricks. That's why they lost two elections to Bush-Rove.
Paul is more likely being victimized by the right who would like to see his votes elsewhere. The same people who demeaned the military records of McCain and Kerry--while the media stood on the sidelines and made money from it.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

I do not agree. Ron is a thorn in the side of the front runners, since he does represent the thinking of a lot of people re: economics and international affairs. His low poll numbers, in my opinion, represent more the fatalistic viewpoint of party loyalists who know he has no chance of winning vs: the machine. Once again, party trumps everything else.

For once we agree.

Paul may not be a threat by poll numbers, but I'm pretty sure the top tier guys would rather him not be invited to debates, where he gets loud applause and embarasses the others. If Paul ever gets a chance to ask the other candidates some questions, well, get ready to watch them squirm. I thought his answer last night on why he is a true conservative Republican was just awesome.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by hytem

The Democrats don't do dirty tricks. That's why they lost two elections to Bush-Rove.

Now that's funny

[MRM]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

At my last job our number somehow got onto Ron Paul's media fax list. I called over to his office a few times, trying to get a meeting with his press guy, but to no avail. We got onto Kucinich's list too and always got their newsletters faxed to us. It's been a few years since I read any of them and it was still long after the dates on these "swiftboat" newsletters. But the ones I got directly from Ron Paul's office were nothing at all like these ones CNN is writing about now. I suspect Ron Paul had nothing to do with them, though I could be wrong.

Can you really belive that Ron Paul had no knowledge of what was being written in "The Ron Paul Newsletter" for NINE YEARS?

His cover story is that he didn't write the acrticles but he paid people to write them, never read them (for nine years - how did he know anything was being written?) and that the whole thing was his editor's responsibility. The articles were published under his name and included biographical references that were meant to suggest RP was writing the article himself.

He's either lying or is the most inept candidate for president ever. If you don't mind what he's saying in those letters, that's one thing. I'd respect him more if he stood up and said that's what he believes and that's what he said. but to say he didn't know what he was publishing in his own self-titled newsletter is more goofy than putting the country back on the gold standard.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by MRM

Can you really belive that Ron Paul had no knowledge of what was being written in "The Ron Paul Newsletter" for NINE YEARS?

His cover story is that he didn't write the acrticles but he paid people to write them, never read them (for nine years - how did he know anything was being written?) and that the whole thing was his editor's responsibility. The articles were published under his name and included biographical references that were meant to suggest RP was writing the article himself.

He's either lying or is the most inept candidate for president ever. If you don't mind what he's saying in those letters, that's one thing. I'd respect him more if he stood up and said that's what he believes and that's what he said. but to say he didn't know what he was publishing in his own self-titled newsletter is more goofy than putting the country back on the gold standard.

Ok, I'll have to read up more on this and see if there are photos of these things laying around. Ron Paul is the kind of guy, who, I'd be very surprised by if he didn't write all his own speeches, newsletters, constituent correspondence, etc. He just comes across as that kind of person. And since he's never changed his views on anything and never apologizes for anything, I tend to believe him if he says he didn't have anything to do with it.

[legion]

Originally Posted by hytem

The Democrats don't do dirty tricks. That's why they lost two elections to Bush-Rove.

Right.

Dan Rather aired fabricated documents because he wasn't on a political mission.

Time showed doctored photos (made to look worse--duh!) of Iraq because they love the Bush Admin.

Sorry, you should have typed that in brown, because it is BS. The Dems don't have to play dirty tricks (though they still do) because of all the in-kind contributions they get from the media.

[Moneyguy1]

It is a conspiracy, I tell you!!!!!

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by hytem

The Democrats don't do dirty tricks. That's why they lost two elections to Bush-Rove.
Paul is more likely being victimized by the right who would like to see his votes elsewhere. The same people who demeaned the military records of McCain and Kerry--while the media stood on the sidelines and made money from it.

Of course not, not the Dems in Chicago during the Nixon/Kennedy race
not the Dems-dead ones-on the Indian Reservations
not the dumb ones in Florida that screwed up their own voting in their own precincts
not the illegals in SoCal that voted for Laura Sanchez, or whatever her gringo name was before.


Whatever, after watching him last night he should be toast.

[jyl]

If he wrote all his own stuff and he didn't write these, then the implication is these newsletters are forgeries.

If so, he sure as heck should be saying so, and if he doesn't say so (and prove it, surely he keeps back copies of his own newsletters), then there is something wrong.

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Ok, I'll have to read up more on this and see if there are photos of these things laying around. Ron Paul is the kind of guy, who, I'd be very surprised by if he didn't write all his own speeches, newsletters, constituent correspondence, etc. He just comes across as that kind of person. And since he's never changed his views on anything and never apologizes for anything, I tend to believe him if he says he didn't have anything to do with it.

[hytem]

Originally Posted by legion

Right.

Dan Rather aired fabricated documents because he wasn't on a political mission.

Time showed doctored photos (made to look worse--duh!) of Iraq because they love the Bush Admin.

Sorry, you should have typed that in brown, because it is BS. The Dems don't have to play dirty tricks (though they still do) because of all the in-kind contributions they get from the media.

Dan Rather and CBS got hoodwinked, and we still don't know who was behind it. Probably Rove. The result was Bush's questionable military record got overlooked by the media, and Kerry's service in Vietnam was trashed. You don't have to be a Democrat to see that. Ask John McCain.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by hytem

Dan Rather and CBS got hoodwinked, and we still don't know who was behind it. Probably Rove. The result was Bush's questionable military record got overlooked by the media, and Kerry's service in Vietnam was trashed. You don't have to be a Democrat to see that. Ask John McCain.

If the Republicans were behind this it really shows how dumb the Democrats and CBS are, to get hoodwinked like that by Republicans, WOW. As dumb as you people think GW and the rest of the Republicans are, how dumb can the dems be.