Attack dogs have finally been unleashed on Ron Paul. Those barking dogs caused Andrew Sullivan to Re-Think The Paul Endorsement
Time Magazine even launched a headline Paul Walks Away
No Need to Rethink Endorsement
There is no need to rethink endorsements. Here is the deal: Ron Paul did not say the things attributed to him. He denies them, disavows them, and most importantly, his voting record proves it!
Can anyone honestly tell me why things Ron Paul did NOT say over twenty years ago should be news today?
Paul Missed Best Tactic
How many times does he have to deny he wrote those things? Still, Ron Paul did not handle the CNN setup in the best possible manner.
This is what Paul said to CNN.
“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago? I didn’t write them, I disavow them.“
That answer was perfectly fine, as far as it went. Then Paul walked out. It was a missed opportunity.
Rather than walking out, Paul should have followed up with …
“I’m not here to discuss imaginary topics or things I never said. Now, do you want to discuss my position on the economy, on the Fed, and on spending, or is your only point to this interview to discuss things I did not say 20 years ago and have explained to CNN countless times?“
That would have smashed the ball down CNN interviewer Gloria Borger’s throat, right where it belonged.
OK. Admittedly, Ron Paul did not respond in the perfect manner. So Ron Paul is human. Who isn’t?
Is a transgression 22 years ago of something Ron Paul never said, and whose track record in congress proves it, any reason to drop support of Ron Paul?
In favor of who? Flip-flopper Newt Gingrich? Mitt Romney, the man that practically wrote the Obama Health-Care legislation? The Mitt Romney who wants to starts a trade war with China? Another Republican candidate that has no chance of winning?
If case you are a misguided Mitt Romney fan please consider President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!
Anyone “rethinking” their Ron Paul endorsement based on things Paul never said is not thinking clearly.
Attack Dog Plus Side
Here’s the plus side to the attack dogs: Ron Paul is now considered a serious candidate or the attack dogs would not have been unleashed on things he never said 22 years ago.
Interestingly, The State Column reports Ron Paul still holds a lead in Iowa.
Thus, a majority of voters have decided that 22-year-old never-made statements are irrelevant, even if some misguided souls can’t.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
- CNN Contributor: Ron Paul Supporters Are Like ‘The Postal Service'; Come Hail, Snow Or Sleet, They’ll Be There (mediaite.com)
- Andrew Sullivan Rethinking Ron Paul Endorsement (lezgetreal.com)
- Robert Naiman: If Ron Paul Wins Iowa, Antiwar Democrats and Independents Likely to Provide Margin of Victory (huffingtonpost.com)
- The Five On Ron Paul’s Iowa Lead: ‘Crazy Uncle Is Driving The Car’ (mediaite.com)
- Republican mainstreamers turn up the heat on Ron Paul (capitolhillblue.com)
- Why Won’t Ron Paul Name The Newsletter’s Author? (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- Ron Paul supporters: Uncut video shows he didn’t ‘storm out’ of CNN interview (thehill.com)