Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

I couldn't find the original, so:



Let's rerail and possibly start a new thread before Aqizzar and/or Toady has to have words with us.

[FearfulJesuit]

So it looks like the next primary isn't until the 31st, and that's Florida, which should be absolutely huge because it's fourth in terms of population, and the biggest one that's going to be a tossup in the general election (since Texas [1st] is going to vote Republican and California and New York [1st and 3rd, respectively] will vote Democrat).

Any Florida polls yet? Not that they mean anything...

[Frumple]

... we've been getting ads and phonecalls and suchlike for about a week now, I think, though only in fairly small amounts. Guess that means the bullshit is going to start to fly hardcore soon, or is starting to now.

Damnit.

Anyway, things should be fairly interesting, as they usually are when dealing with a schizophrenic state. It's a closed primary (If I'm actually remembering the right word for that; us registered dems don't get to vote on things. I just woke up.) though, so I fortunately don't get to actually vote on one of those slime bastids. Means they're probably going to be infecting my state for a bit, though

Haven't noticed any polls, but I've also been doing my damnedest to stick my head in the ground and miss the oncoming shitstorm.

[RedKing]

As to Paul being "blessed" by the lack of media coverage, I have to agree with MSH. No press is worse than bad press. Hell, look at Gingrich. If you're slick enough, you can turn bad coverage into a 20-point surge in the polls if you know how to spin it right.

I'd have to say this is an overgeneralization.  All those allegations of sexual assault did not turn out to be "good press" for Herman Cain.  Similarly, I don't think the exposure of Ron Paul's racism/ willingness to sign anything for 10 years would be good press for him either.

But it can be argued that the allegations weren't what did Cain in, it was the way he handled them. But I take your point. If this was all new revelations about Gingrich, he might not have parried it so well. Still, the "open marriage" thing was new, and he's managed to deflect it pretty well by turning the tables and claiming that even asking him about it is somehow a liberal attack that borders on indecency.

Latest polling data on Florida is from the 18th, before the SC primary. Back then, Romney was leading Gingrich 40-22 and was trending towards an even larger lead. But with the events of the last few days....tough to say. I assume the various poll orgs are hitting the state hard this weekend and will report their data tomorrow. By an aggregate count, Romney had about an 18 to 20 point lead on Gingrich before the shit hit the fan in the Palmetto State. If that evaporates and Gingrich is polling even-strength or better by tomorrow....then I pity the poor residents of Florida, because you can expect to see nothing but SuperPAC ads from now until the 31st. Romney's warchest will unload a million barrels into the Florida ad market, and I'd expect to see Gingrich do the same. This is a fickle, fickle state. Newt was actually leading in Florida by nearly 30 points as recently as the beginning of December. Then his candidacy nosedived and it seemed Romney was going to take everything, and the Florida polls reflected that. Now that Romney seems to have stalled out and Gingrich is coming on like a bat out of hell, I'd expect Florida to reflect that as well. Consider that since the end of September, there have been at least four different front-runners in this state: Rick Perry, Romney, Herman Cain, and Gingrich. And Romney has gained and lost front-runner status twice and possibly a third time now if he drops out of first this week.

[Montague]

Maybe I could accept this if Ron Paul had admitted to holding these views and said that he has moved on, and has realised the error of his ways.  He hasn't.  He's trying to deny he's ever held those views by claiming that he never checked the newsletters that were printed under his name (some of which he even signed).

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

The press ignores Ron Paul because they don't think he is a "real" candidate and thus irrelevant other then as an uninteresting side-show. Not enough vapid drama and hot-air to even make an interesting side show like Newt, Trump, Palin or Bachmann.

He's also been saying the exact same stuff for the last 30 years and anybody who has ever heard of the guy already knows where he probably stands on every issue imaginable anyways.

[Heron TSG]

Also, that newsletter thing has kind of blown over now. I'll just leave it at that.

At the time Paul's campaign did not deny writing the newsletters.[225][226][62] Campaign spokesman Michael Sullivan stated that they were taken "out of context". In a Dallas Morning News interview, Paul himself defended two of the statements, including the "95% criminal" statement, and added that "If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?"[64] A Houston Chronicle interview includes the statement, "[Ron Paul] said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time'."[227]

In March 2001, Paul stated that he did not write the commentaries but that he had defended them in 1996 because his campaign advisors had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name. He stated that while he did not write the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.[228]

Uh... the linked section doesn't appear to help that point at all.

Florida is another all-or-nothing state, right? If so, I'm thinking the nomination will be fairly well decided there. Newt may build an unstoppable momentum, or Romney will come back and strangle him with money before he really gets going. Me? I'm hoping for a Newt/Santorum ticket so that people will be pouring out of the woodwork to oppose that nightmare. Romney is just slimy enough to have a chance.

[Leafsnail]

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

A better representation would be "A newsletter with Ron Pauls name on it (ie which was supposedly written or at least overseen by him) which was signed by him in some editions was consistently racist over the course of about a decade".

[Aqizzar]

There's also the fact that it came up when he ran for President in 2008 as well, and a few earlier times.  The problem is, he keeps giving a different history of his relationship with the publishers, drawing himself as further and further away from them every time it comes again, or just knocking away microphones and leaving whatever interview it is.

And even if you agree that he had nothing to do with the newsletters (which is unknowable after all), and would personally disavow the ridiculous crap written in them, I would it does not speak well to his management that he would allow or be totally oblivious of a publication in his own name printing material he disagreed with for ten years.


When I saw sixty new posts since I was last in here a few hours ago, I was prepared to write a scathing text wall about the Civil War, since I earned a fucking degree in American history.  As long as everyone is willing to shut up about it now, I'm willing to not prolong it.

[G-Flex]

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

A better representation would be "A newsletter with Ron Pauls name on it (ie which was supposedly written or at least overseen by him) which was signed by him in some editions was consistently racist over the course of about a decade".

And written from his perspective in some cases.

[palsch]

Gabby Giffords stepping down this week.

[Montague]

It's hard to pin Ron Paul down as some secret racist just because somebody said something racist on his newsletter however many years ago it was. As far as political character scandals go, thats a pretty weak.

A better representation would be "A newsletter with Ron Pauls name on it (ie which was supposedly written or at least overseen by him) which was signed by him in some editions was consistently racist over the course of about a decade".

Well, no, that'd be a less accurate statement. The newsletter in question was printed over the course of about a decade, sure, 'consistantly racist' not really. There are about a dozen dodgy statements quoted from the newsletter from however many they've picked through. That seems to indicate more of a laziness of Ron Paul to read his own newsletters, more then actual proof of racism on his part. So at worse, he let racists and weirdos submit articles for his newsletter. Anyways, it was two decades ago and you never actually hear him say racist things or discuss the weird conspircy theories presented on the newsletter, past or present.

And written from his perspective in some cases.

He wrote articles for the newsletter, but none of the ones in question here.

[G-Flex]

And written from his perspective in some cases.

He wrote articles for the newsletter, but none of the ones in question here.

Incorrect. Some of the offensive passages were written from his perspective and signed ostensibly by him. Such as a particular advertisement for the newsletter which warned of a coming "race war". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ad-for-ron-pauls-newsletter-forecast-race-war/

[Aqizzar]

Gabby Giffords stepping down this week.

That poor woman.  I can't say I'm surprised that she's resigning, it just raises the question of why now instead of earlier or later.  Not that it matters of course.

I wonder if there will be any kind of heated contention for her seat, or if we'll see some actual propriety for once.

[Montague]

And written from his perspective in some cases.

He wrote articles for the newsletter, but none of the ones in question here.

Incorrect. Some of the offensive passages were written from his perspective and signed ostensibly by him. Such as a particular advertisement for the newsletter which warned of a coming "race war". http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ad-for-ron-pauls-newsletter-forecast-race-war/

It was a ghost writer, so he claims. Goes to show you he did indeed have some racists and weirdos on his A-team and he was definately advertising to a weirdo demographic, but doesn't really implicate him directly as an obvious racist.

[G-Flex]

It implicates him as someone who would have racists write for him, as him, signed by him, for a newsletter written by him, for years on end, somehow without noticing for, what was his last story, a decade? How does that even happen? Even if he isn't racist and homophobic (well, we know he's homophobic for other reasons, but that's another story) and as scary as depicted in those newsletters, he still profited from it intentionally, or was woefully incompetent enough to hire people to speak for him for years without paying a damn bit of attention to what they were saying through his mouth.