Will the Media Attacks Backfire?

Yes in Iowa he has his best chance because it's small and he has canvased the place. However when you start to enter states with big cities his message is going to be harder to keep clear.

I hope I'm wrong and there is severe reaction to him say winning Iowa and being discounted yet again. I'm in MA so this state clouds a lot of my perception. I'm not seeing any political evidence here. We have a super Tuesday vote too. That's only 2 months away. I'd like to see the campaign refocus efforts to attack Obama and Romney simultaneously. Problem is people are just blaming congress and not Obama. That is the single greatest problem. If that could be overcome then it could really come back to haunt the establishment along with their propaganda ministers who would never be respected again.

in a thoughtful and conclusive manner to shut this issue down once and for all, especially for the Doc's own reputation, a consideration for R3VOLution's efforts, and for new supporters' sake, but I think it's unfair to accuse Lew as being the ghostwriter.

While old-school libertarians are pretty sure that, that may be the case, it still is nothing more than a rumored smear started by Reason/CATO-beltarians specifically with the intent of blunting the Doc's support in 2007-2008.

though I'm not naive as to it being a possibility.

but, frankly Lew stepping forward won't do any good. it serves no purpose other than for the MSM, neocons & RINOs to watch our movement fracture with glee.

you even see Gillespie/Welch moderating their disdain a bit, and are now simply trying to ride his coattails while still lightly jabbing him here and there, reminding everyone where an article that outlines who the real culprit may be listed: reason.com

if it was Lew, the next logical question then becomes, why has the Doc kept up such associations for so long, if he disagreed vehemently with such sentiments?

already, the MSM has shifted their attack patterns from accusing the Doc directly, which NONE of them thought to begin with, to now accusing 'the company he keeps'-guilt-by-association-meme as outlined in NYT Sunday. so the 'revelation' of having kept Lew within the Doc's intellectual nucleus only proves their assertions.

plus, let's not mince words here. Statists Matt Welch and Julian Sanchez at Reason intentionally did this expose, not as some internal in-house-cleansing just when Ron was being successful at attracting literally millions of new youths into libertarianism, en masse, but they did it because they simply didn't want Rockwellian-Rothbardian-Misesian 'version' of libertarianism to be the one that introduced the neophytes into the fold, but their Reason/CATO-beltarianism. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And, all current hyperlinks posted at liberal MSM sites trashing the Doc calling him vile names are all pointing back to 2008 Reason expose on this issue coordinated along with Jamie Kirchick. All so that frankly, for most liberals who's never heard of Lew Rockwell, if they were even remotely interested in learning about Rothbard or Misess, their first impression would be a negative one.

Then, the next question would be, if none of RP's former staffers were truly racists, but used 'racist' tones designed specifically to reach out to the 'redneck fascists' strategically, that makes them cynical and equally culpable of resorting to Kissinger-esque "reale-politik" to get things done. Or, more specifically as it pertains to our case, to raise money from 'extreme elements' out of political expediency, which goes counter to the ENTIRE "Ron Paul Brand" that the Doc has so meticulously built over the years out of pure exercise in personal morals as willfully exhibited in his daily private and public life.

it would essentially make him 'just another politician' in the eyes of many.

Though, personally, even if they did a strategic reach-out, I'd see it an attempt to introducing ideas to a group of individuals whom otherwise would have never heard of it nor had any political representation, in hopes of consensually converting a few toward what I'd consider a noble idea of individual sovereignty, free markets, sound money, and limited govt.

Kinda like what Judge Napolitano does with Freedom Watch at FakeBiz: if he converts even 10% of his RINO or neocon viewers, it could only be a good thing to swell the numbers toward more freedom.

After all, antagonizing and keeping 'extreme' groups in the outer fringes only solidifies their numbers, ie isolationism. Isn't diplomacy all about reaching out to one's supposed enemies? Like say... Iran?

Let's face it, for those of us who truly recognize the macro picture of imminent NDAA ubiquitous police state at home and continued murder/torture/war/occupation abroad, with global fiat monetary system collapse looming, unless we make a drastic change, a lot of us will be simply looking to go Galt.

So, there's not much the Doc, nor anyone else can do to affect our immutable support for him. None. I and those who feel the same way only see one choice: Dr. Paul. There is no one else for us.

But, as you know, since the Doc is the only candidate with cross-political spectrum appeal where our new ranks would more than likely swell from, make no mistake, this smear campaign is targeted toward independents and disillusioned liberals/progressives & anti-war Dems who are now joining the Doc and the R3VOLution.

Those new supporters are the ones who are very PC-conscious, that the GOP Ruling Class want to scare off with unsubstantiated ridiculous charge of "racism."

like it or not, reality being, most RINOs could care less about charges of racism, except when it comes to "anti-Israel" or "anti-semete!"

plus, the nature of the racist label is such, anytime someone claims to be "not-racist" the root word "racist" is still invoked, psychologically anchoring that sentiment subconsciously in the mind of the listener. It amounts to trying to disprove a negative, like telling off a peaceful zen monk, 'prove to me you're not a wife-beater,' etc.

But, in credit to Dr. Paul, I 'get' that as a devout individualist he prizes personal accountability, so I can see how conflicted he may feel as the newsletters at the end of the day did bear his name & however little or more financially benefited so, I see his internal conundrum in having to still feel like he should apologize for something he didn't do.

In another sense, because RP's been through this before where he apologized to his own constituency, I also get that in some sense he doesn't feel obligated to apologize to every new supporter who weren't aware of it before, nor are too excited at the prospect of dealing with it all over again.

I mean it's not as if he'll say: 'hi my name is Ron Paul. I'm the champion of the Constitution. I've delivered over 4000 babies. I've never voted against the Bill of Rights, especially your 1st & 2nd Amendment. I've never voted to raise your taxes. I return about $100k of my office budget back to Treasury, annually. I've taken more principled stance with 434-1 votes possibly in all of Congress' history. And, I have a 20yr old newsletter that I did not write that has objectionable to possibly 'racist' sounding things. Will you vote for me?'

lol

don't know what the official campaign is planning. as there is some prudence to not answering your enemies at all. no direct response from the intended target of derision? then, MSM basically is talking to themselves, however venomous. if not, they risk sounding overtly vicious in the minds of their viewers. though not expecting much from those who get 'news' from MSM, to begin with.

Regardless, as our ultimate goal (outside of our principled restoration of the Republic), is to dethrone the first black US POTUS. to that end, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the official campaign did not expect this to be an issue down the line.

The campaign's taking a gamble in trusting the ground game, Xmas break/slow holidays-news cycle, with rising poll numbers and momentum to sustain them till Jan 3, and Jan 10. But during the lull between NH and SC, they'll definitely have to address this somehow.

I do not wish to see his momentum slow down or having to waste bulk of my time defending, instead of introducing principles of liberty that he's fought for so long, and something the the Republic needs so much to immediately blunt the roll-out of a domestic police state.

it's all a matter of biding time, as the ball truly is left in the Doc's hands on this issue.

People must be thinking they just discovered these newsletters, then they find out they are 20 years old and have been discussed for 10 years. So it's purely an attempt to discredit him now that he's become a contender.