Lead Story at Politico is about Ron Paul Forums!

[itshappening]

http://www.politico.com/

wooohoooo !

Crap article though, first paragraph, um... who is better financed than Ron Paul?

Article even mentions the "forums" :-P

[FrankRep]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391_Page2.html


Those young people form the core of Paul’s support—he’s currently trying to schedule a visit to a university in Iowa because he likes meeting them so much—and they congregate online. Brown and Yates are both members of the Liberty Forest Ron Paul Forums, a website that’s independent of Paul’s own Campaign for Liberty. They were two of more than 10 forum members who responded to a POLITICO query within an hours of its posting on the site.

[Andrew-Austin]

That is the reporter who created a thread to interview the forum. Some said it would be a negative piece, because other CPAC articles apparently were, but it wasn't. It was good.

It seems the comments are mostly retarded.

[Bern]

Mods better get a handle on this duplicate thread business or it will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/490_3.jpg/

[hazek]

Crappy article Kasie.

You almost made it sound like organizing to win straw polls and proving his viability is the only thing we care about? How about you'd mention all the bias and smearing and marginalizing in the media which we don't have any other way of fighting? It would shed quite a different light on our efforts, wouldn't? But oh no, you're part of the problem, of course we can't expect you to out yourself.

Thanks a lot! Not.


And for the future: maybe write correctly about his philosophies instead, you know, so people can actually get some good information out of your article

[hazek]

Some said it would be a negative piece, because other CPAC articles apparently were, but it wasn't. It was good.

I must have read a different article because the one I read made it sound like any straw poll Ron wins is all due to us putting a lot of effort into the results and should be dismissed as any kind of a indicator of the general voting public further giving the media credit when they marginalize him.

It's a hit piece despite it's nicer tone.

[Andrew-Austin]

I must have read a different article because the one I read made it sound like any straw poll Ron wins is all due to us putting a lot of effort into the results and should be dismissed as any kind of a indicator of the general voting public further giving the media credit when they marginalize him.

It's a hit piece despite it's nicer tone.

Its good in that I don't expect reporters to lie in their analysis, in this case that team Paul puts a lot of effort in to winning polls like that, but that its uncertain this will translate in to any winning effort nationally in the primaries. She did insuate the enthusiasm would continue to be there for other polls and in primaries.

Some seem to expect an article that sounds like it was written by one of us it is so marketably worded, glowing, and optimistic. Its a pretty irrational expectation, relatively speaking it was good.

[zyphex]

Article was actually very fair and realistic. Let's look at the facts, Ron does great in Presidential straw polls and has come up short in Presidential elections. It's disappointing, but it has been true. I don't think the article did anything but voice what many people in her thread said: we have deep, enthusiatic support, we just have to work on widening the support. And one way we do it is through getting Paul media exposure through straw poll wins.

[hazek]

She laid out the correct description of the events but she provided a wrong or no explanation for them.

Sure we organize to win straw polls but did she ask why that is? I think yes. And what was her answer?: "The Paul supporters are almost obsessive about the polls, and they have one goal: to get the media’s attention in an attempt to prove Paul is a viable candidate for president."

I think that's not a fair assessment. Do you?

[hazek]

I suggest you read some of the posts in: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278729-Reporter-inquiry-How-do-you-win-so-many-straw-polls

Majority say that it's our way of fighting the media bias. Not to get attention, but to get the right kind of attention or a fair attention and stop all the marginalizing and smearing.

I think there's a big difference.



You people have to realize it's all about the language. If you say "The Paul supporters are almost obsessive about the polls, and they have one goal: to get the media’s attention in an attempt to prove Paul is a viable candidate for president." a undecided reader will read it as us being obsessed with some guy and we hoard people into polls just to prove our obsession is valid.

If she wanted to be fair she could have worded it differently: "The Paul supporters are almost obsessive about the polls, and they have one goal: to fight the media’s marginalizing and smearing in an attempt to prove Paul is a viable candidate for president."

But we'll never see the truth like that in print.

[ItsTime]

2008 changed everything, Ron Paul has a real chance this time around.

[MelissaWV]

2008 changed everything, Ron Paul has a real chance this time around.

...as long as supporters actually support, and learn how to play the game instead of pointing and laughing at it.

If the latter is the goal, Ron won't win a single state.

[hazek]

Did she care to watch this?:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZR7_3MUAbo

[TomtheTinker]

I really honestly believe we are making progress. I also believe if it wasn't for the Egypt story our activism and message would possibly be the #1 story. We are driving the most active political conversation in the country...to ignore it now would be foolish.

WE ARE ALIVE!!!

[torchbearer]

...as long as supporters actually support, and learn how to play the game instead of pointing and laughing at it.

If the latter is the goal, Ron won't win a single state.

well, i don't think ron's support has waned. Most of the leaders in the various states in the libert movement are now way more experienced in the primary/caucus processes of their states.
our outlook is even better for 2012.
Ron's run at the very least will pave a nice big highway of gold for rand.

[bolidew]

Establishment media just want us to quilt, that is exactly why we should fight on.

[pacelli]

Funny how Ron Paul's message isn't mentioned once in the article, yet nearly every reply within the reporter's deadline mentioned it.

[Liberty4life]

"Unlike many other top tier potential presidential candidates, Paul doesn’t pay for his supporters’ tickets to events like CPAC. He didn’t have a collection of paid staffers rounding up votes last year, and he won’t this year, either."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1DlMB3uxb

[MelissaWV]

well, i don't think ron's support has waned. Most of the leaders in the various states in the libert movement are now way more experienced in the primary/caucus processes of their states.
our outlook is even better for 2012.
Ron's run at the very least will pave a nice big highway of gold for rand.

I don't think it has waned overall, either. However, if we once again wind up coming away from an election season with more sign-wavers than voters (still discussing primaries), it's a problem. There seems to be an undercurrent of grumbling among some of the "supporters" that things are so corrupt it doesn't matter; heckle and boo and complain, but don't participate in the system (the system is the problem!) and who cares what the voters/establishment/media think. If those points are valid to those people, then an election is the farthest thing from winnable.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, it is pretty clear the media is presenting Ron as 'the expected winner' so it won't mean anything. They are going to a lot of trouble to do it, too.

[sailingaway]

I don't think it has waned overall, either. However, if we once again wind up coming away from an election season with more sign-wavers than voters (still discussing primaries), it's a problem. There seems to be an undercurrent of grumbling among some of the "supporters" that things are so corrupt it doesn't matter; heckle and boo and complain, but don't participate in the system (the system is the problem!) and who cares what the voters/establishment/media think. If those points are valid to those people, then an election is the farthest thing from winnable.

Those supporters pose a problem. Are we gaining enough regular GOP to make up for it? I mean, I donated in 2007 and 2008, but found out about Ron too late to get involved, it was almost primary time in my state before I realized I liked him enough to do more than drop a couple hundred dollars on his money bomb. I joined here and at DP when things started warming up again.

In a poll done here recently, those here because of the campaign and after far outnumbered those here before. I can see where those here through the last dance may feel 'been there done that, it doesn't work', but I think we have to see how much snow the snowball picks up rolling downhill this time. The last poll I saw said Ron had a 70% name ID now, which sure beats what he started with last time. Mind you, not all of that is positive, but positive or not things are different this time around.

I still can't figure out if Ron is planning to run or do something else, though. I know everyone else is sure, but I have this nagging doubt.

[Baptist]

Well, all I know is that I hope that Paul's campaign focuses a 100% on Iowa and the caucus states. Electronic voting is easier to hijack than showing up at a caucus, which is why I think that Paul got 1st, 2nd, 3rd in all the caucus states and 4% in EVERY primary state.

[sailingaway]

Well, all I know is that I hope that Paul's campaign focuses a 100% on Iowa and the caucus states. Electronic voting is easier to hijack than showing up at a caucus, which is why I think that Paul got 1st, 2nd, 3rd in all the caucus states and 4% in EVERY primary state.

When your supporters are energized you do better in caucus states. Hillary won ballot states and Obama won primary states, remember?

[MRoCkEd]

Crap article though

Disagree. This is one of the best and fairest articles I've seen about Ron Paul.

Amazing!

[UtahApocalypse]

"Unlike many other top tier potential presidential candidates, Paul doesn’t pay for his supporters’ tickets to events like CPAC. He didn’t have a collection of paid staffers rounding up votes last year, and he won’t this year, either."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1DlMB3uxb


Yes never mind that Romney has multiple times paid for, and bussed in votes to these events :(

Disappointed. i never saw a single part in the article that actually addressed the original question of why we support Ron Paul.

[micahnelson]

Great Article. Very fair, and fairly accurate.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.politico.com/

Crap article though,

What do you mean "crap article? - she called him a "TOP TIER CANDIDATE"

[sailingaway]

Article was actually very fair and realistic. Let's look at the facts, Ron does great in Presidential straw polls and has come up short in Presidential elections. It's disappointing, but it has been true. I don't think the article did anything but voice what many people in her thread said: we have deep, enthusiatic support, we just have to work on widening the support. And one way we do it is through getting Paul media exposure through straw poll wins.

nice ninth post.

[MelissaWV]

I think it's precisely the level of article that it should be.

I am curious as to why people expected a gushing, supportive article. I don't think the article got around to answering its own questions, no, but it also didn't bash and ridicule. If the implication is that straw polls and the like are inaccurate readings of national sentiment, then what's wrong about that? Early mainstream polls showed non-McCain frontrunners, that's for sure. McCain wasn't even a fully-formed afterthought.

I would have liked to have seen a bit more emphasis on how the forum members put their money (and their actions) where their mouths are. We got each other to CPAC, and help one another out with our wacky projects. We educate ourselves and try to get the word out to others in a digestable fashion. We are prepared in case a man we admire and support decides to throw his hat in the ring. That's pretty powerful stuff.

The mainstream candidates are "prepared" because there are so many of them, and this is their umpteenth time to the radio in some cases. Obama being the exception, most candidates don't have all-out fans. It's a "best of the bad choices" scenario, even for the party faithful. The war chests candidates bring to the table are generally not filled by hopeful citizens, but by people hoping their lobbies and dollars will add up to a favorable presidency. There is a sleepiness to mainstream campaigns.

Why are we interested in Ron Paul? For many of us, we had the ideas first, the stands on "fringe" issues, and then realized there was actually someone already in Washington who shared a lot of those views and, when he didn't, still championed our right to disagree with him.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Kind of annoyed. I spent about 30 min on the phone with the reporter and waited at home for the rest of the day and spent another 20-25 mins doing a followup e-mail. She indicated she would probably call back with followup questions so I blew off CPAC on thurs. :( She didn't quote me once! :( I also thought it would be longer.

Still, I was pleased with the article. I think we have a friend at politico and expect her to come out with additional favorable articles in the future.

-t

[sailingaway]

I commented that no one mentions he came in second in Nevada, not a caucus, or that he LOST CPAC those years but won last year, showing something has changed.

But there were at least some decent points made there, contrary to media meme:



But the Campaign for Liberty didn’t pay for supporters’ CPAC tickets. Their top-down efforts have been supplemented — or even surpassed — by a hard-core group of young fans who use the Internet to organize, encourage each other, and lay the groundwork for top finishes in the various straw poll events.

And note this language used:


Unlike many other top tier potential presidential candidates, Paul doesn’t pay for his supporters’ tickets to events like CPAC. He didn’t have a collection of paid staffers rounding up votes last year, and he won’t this year, either.

“I don’t know if I will win the poll. It would be nice if I could, but quite frankly, I’m always surprised how well I do. Last year, it was pretty much a shock to me,” Paul said.



'other top tier candidates'. For that alone, I give her a pass....

Play nice in the comment section.

[YumYum]

I think it's precisely the level of article that it should be.

I am curious as to why people expected a gushing, supportive article. I don't think the article got around to answering its own questions, no, but it also didn't bash and ridicule. If the implication is that straw polls and the like are inaccurate readings of national sentiment, then what's wrong about that? Early mainstream polls showed non-McCain frontrunners, that's for sure. McCain wasn't even a fully-formed afterthought.

I would have liked to have seen a bit more emphasis on how the forum members put their money (and their actions) where their mouths are. We got each other to CPAC, and help one another out with our wacky projects. We educate ourselves and try to get the word out to others in a digestable fashion. We are prepared in case a man we admire and support decides to throw his hat in the ring. That's pretty powerful stuff.

The mainstream candidates are "prepared" because there are so many of them, and this is their umpteenth time to the radio in some cases. Obama being the exception, most candidates don't have all-out fans. It's a "best of the bad choices" scenario, even for the party faithful. The war chests candidates bring to the table are generally not filled by hopeful citizens, but by people hoping their lobbies and dollars will add up to a favorable presidency. There is a sleepiness to mainstream campaigns.

Why are we interested in Ron Paul? For many of us, we had the ideas first, the stands on "fringe" issues, and then realized there was actually someone already in Washington who shared a lot of those views and, when he didn't, still championed our right to disagree with him.

I think the problem with Ron Paul supporters being identified as "rude fanatics" and "belligerent extremists" could be resolved by breaking us up into two groups: supporters and activists. Just about everybody at CPAC who is promoting Ron Paul are activists. An "activist" is more emotionally involved. All the other potential candidates there have their "supporters" in the audience, with a few activists. It can be expected that activists will boo and cheer and draw attention, while supporters will sit quietly with their hands folded. The question we must ask ourselves: I'm I an "activist", or a "supporter"?

[hazek]

Some of you people are delusional.

If you think an article that states: "The Paul supporters are almost obsessive about the polls, and they have one goal: to get the media’s attention in an attempt to prove Paul is a viable candidate for president." is good for us you have another thing coming!

Just you wait. If Ron actually wins the straw poll, I bet my last penny that they'll say: "see, we told you this would happen. I mean look at their forums, they're almost obsessive with winning these polls which now thanks to them are meaningless"

[YumYum]

Some of you people are delusional.

If you think an article that states: "The Paul supporters are almost obsessive about the polls, and they have one goal: to get the media’s attention in an attempt to prove Paul is a viable candidate for president." is good for us you have another thing coming!

Just you wait. If Ron actually wins the straw poll, I bet my last penny that they'll say: "see, we told you this would happen. I mean look at their forums, they're almost obsessive with winning these polls which now thanks to them are meaningless"

Why are you being so negative?

[specsaregood]

Unlike many other top tier potential presidential candidates, Paul doesn’t pay for his supporters’ tickets to events like CPAC. He didn’t have a collection of paid staffers rounding up votes last year, and he won’t this year, either.


'other top tier candidates'. For that alone, I give her a pass....
Play nice in the comment section.

I do believe I first said that was "worth mentioning". :)

[sailingaway]

I think the problem with Ron Paul supporters being identified as "rude fanatics" and "belligerent extremists" could be resolved by breaking us up into two groups: supporters and activists. Just about everybody at CPAC who is promoting Ron Paul are activists. An "activist" is more emotionally involved. All the other potential candidates there have their "supporters" in the audience, with a few activists. It can be expected that activists will boo and cheer and draw attention, while supporters will sit quietly with their hands folded. The question we must ask ourselves: I'm I an "activist", or a "supporter"?

No, some of us are rude and think it is 'cool to be punks' and 'revolutionary'. The rationalization of how that could ever inure to the Paul's benefit is breathtaking.

[MelissaWV]

Some of you people are delusional.

If you think an article that states: "The Paul supporters are almost obsessive about the polls, and they have one goal: to get the media’s attention in an attempt to prove Paul is a viable candidate for president." is good for us you have another thing coming!

Just you wait. If Ron actually wins the straw poll, I bet my last penny that they'll say: "see, we told you this would happen. I mean look at their forums, they're almost obsessive with winning these polls which now thanks to them are meaningless"

They *ARE* meaningless as a gauage of national political sentiment. They're quite useful at feeling out whether or not a candidate's supporters are willing to do anything about that candidate.

The article is full of a variety of sentiments, as it should be. You've plucked one line out of two pages' worth of writing. You could have easily picked the line about CPAC not paying for Paul supporters' tickets. You could have decided to point out the quotes from actual RPF members. You chose that line instead, and someone just visiting the site for the first time would have come away with precisely the opinion she did. The front page was plastered with articles about CPAC; coordination of how to get there, who to stay with, how to pay for it; Chip-Ins begging to be filled; advice on what to wear and how to act.

It absolutely could have been worse, if the author had taken just a little longer to sift through the posts on this forum. Would you prefer the article talk about the premeditated, calculated actions during Rummy's awards ceremony? How about the conspiracy-related talk on here? Maybe she could have mentioned the rabid anti-authority sentiment?

If she really wanted to paint the place, and all the supporters, as loony she certainly overlooked prime ammo.

Is the goal of this particular set of weeks (surrounding CPAC) to get Ron Paul the win at the poll?

I'm still wondering how she's inaccurate about that. We could be organizing in general, looking towards the potential presidential run, getting people registered, etc.. Instead there really is a huge focus on CPAC, and the responses to her query on here talked mostly about respect in the media.

[sailingaway]

I do believe I first said that was "worth mentioning". :)

Sorry, it won't let me up rep you again so soon. I started reading the article and comments and didn't go through the thread here as it grew.

[hazek]

UGHHHH!!

I'm not being negative. I just REALIZE the media is not my friend and is in fact my WORST ENEMY! Have you looked at who owns them?!

I'm bashing people for not realizing this because we are WASTING TIME and EFFORT on pointless stuff. We should primarily focus on fighting the media propaganda and it frustrates me on end that people on these forums still don't get this. Everything else is almost pointless.

[brandon]

“In 2007, when the media was all but ignoring Ron Paul’s candidacy we realized that straw polls were something we could win, and they are really about the only way to get Ron Paul any media attention at all. So we just all start showing up,” said Brandon Yates,

Can't say that's a direct quote of what I said, but it's pretty close.

[YumYum]

No, some of us are rude and think it is 'cool to be punks' and 'revolutionary'. The rationalization of how that could ever inure to the Paul's benefit is breathtaking.

What can be expected? If that is to change then it can begin right here on this forum as to how we treat each other. Good manners begin at home.

[MelissaWV]

UGHHHH!!

I'm not being negative. I just REALIZE the media is not my friend and is in fact my WORST ENEMY! Have you looked at who owns them?!

I'm bashing people for not realizing this because we are WASTING TIME and EFFORT on pointless stuff. We should primarily focus on fighting the media propaganda and it frustrates me on end that people on these forums still don't get this. Everything else is almost pointless.

So, instead of being happy that an author actually came to the forums to do some research and published a less-than-disastrous article about RPFs and Ron Paul in general... we should be bashing our heads repeatedly and collectively against an admittedly mighty and inimical media juggernaut?

[YumYum]

UGHHHH!!

I'm not being negative. I just REALIZE the media is not my friend and is in fact my WORST ENEMY! Have you looked at who owns them?!

I'm bashing people for not realizing this because we are WASTING TIME and EFFORT on pointless stuff. We should primarily focus on fighting the media propaganda and it frustrates me on end that people on these forums still don't get this. Everything else is almost pointless.

Do you watch "Democracy Now!" with Amy Goodman? She played a clip of the Ron Paul supporter calling Cheney a "war criminal". It was great and I'll bet you that there are thousands of people who do not know about Ron Paul who googled him after her report. I think there are millions of conservative leftists who would come over to Ron Paul's camp if they knew what he stood for.

[hazek]

They *ARE* meaningless as a gauage of national political sentiment. They're quite useful at feeling out whether or not a candidate's supporters are willing to do anything about that candidate.
Such delusional thinking. So wait a straw poll that's suppose to measure a candidates support is now meaningless but it's point is which candidate can hoard the most supporters to that poll?


You chose that line instead, and someone just visiting the site for the first time would have come away with precisely the opinion she did. The front page was plastered with articles about CPAC; coordination of how to get there, who to stay with, how to pay for it; Chip-Ins begging to be filled; advice on what to wear and how to act.
Yes I chose the most obvious line because I didn't want to quote the whole damn thing. But it's general message is conveyed through that line. And you are unbelievably wrong about what she should think. Don't you know she made a thread specifically asking for the reasons why we go to these events and people left numerous replies what their motivations are of which she didn't mention a single one!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?278729-Reporter-inquiry-How-do-you-win-so-many-straw-polls&highlight=reporter


It absolutely could have been worse, if the author had taken just a little longer to sift through the posts on this forum. Would you prefer the article talk about the premeditated, calculated actions during Rummy's awards ceremony? How about the conspiracy-related talk on here? Maybe she could have mentioned the rabid anti-authority sentiment?

Yes it could have but it didn't help us either. You just wait and see how the MSM will dismiss Ron's potential CPAC win as a meaningless thanks to the thinking presented in this article.


I'm still wondering how she's inaccurate about that.

She's not inaccurate about our actions but she conveniently omitted what our motivations are. The only sentence that mentions those is the one I quoted. And we don't care about media attention in general, because Ron has that. If you'd read that thread I linked you'd see that most of us told her that we care about the media marginalizing and smearing him and so feel like winning straw polls is the only way we can fight that bias.

[hazek]

So, instead of being happy that an author actually came to the forums to do some research and published a less-than-disastrous article about RPFs and Ron Paul in general... we should be bashing our heads repeatedly and collectively against an admittedly mighty and inimical media juggernaut?

NO!

Instead of wasting our time and efforts on the media doing the job of spreading our message we need to realize that it will never happen and instead focus in different ways to spread our own propaganda. That's what I'd like to see.

People see that article and go: "Yeah baby! Good coverage!" When in fact it's not, which if you can't see yet you'll get the chance to see next week. I want to change that. I want people to say: "How do we for our own propaganda to spread Ron's message as far and wide as we can which will portray him as the best candidate to win the nomination?" and not care about articles and reporters at all!

[specsaregood]

Sorry, it won't let me up rep you again so soon. I started reading the article and comments and didn't go through the thread here as it grew.

Its all good, I wasn't trolling for reps. But it was pretty close to what I said:


Unlike many other top tier potential presidential candidates, Paul doesn’t pay for his supporters’ tickets to events like CPAC. He didn’t have a collection of paid staffers rounding up votes last year, and he won’t this year, either.


I think it should be worth noting, that while Dr. Paul encourages his supporters to participate in events such as the CPAC straw poll, he doesn't buy the tickets for them or pay them to attend, unlike some other media proclaimed "front runners".

I'm pleasantly surprised by the article.

[hazek]

Do you watch "Democracy Now!" with Amy Goodman?

No I didn't. What is "Democracy Now!"? A TV show?

[YumYum]

No I didn't. What is "Democracy Now!"? A TV show?

No, it is the best news program in the world. It is a non-profit cable news outlet that relies on donations and does not have corporate sponsors. I watch it on "Link TV", which is also non-profit cable channel and reaches all around the world.

http://www.democracynow.org/

http://www.linktv.org/

[hazek]

Just for you MelissaWV, another quote of the article:


Still, the difference between Paul supporters and average conservative conference attendees is always obvious to the organizers of various conservative events.

“His supporters went to great lengths to get there specifically to vote for him in the straw poll,” said one conservative who was closely involved with putting on last year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll in New Orleans. “Right before he spoke, a large number of activists showed up to hear him speak and specifically to vote for him in the straw poll.”

Further reassuring readers to not pay attention to the polls because those almost obsessive Paulbots are out in force again, just to vote for Ron.

[hazek]

No, it is the best news program in the world. It is a non-profit cable news outlet that relies on donations and does not have corporate sponsors.

Well that explains a lot. Unfortunately the rest of the media is bought and payed for.

[Kludge]

I see the reporter failed to mention Brandon Yates' councilman status. :D

[hazek]

Look MelissaWV, a comment of the article:


Feb. 12, 2011 - 10:01 AM EST

CPAC is stacked in favor of Ron Paul. Fanaticism for Paul is rampant. Their straw polls are a joke.
junkmaninohio

[MelissaWV]

Such delusional thinking. So wait a straw poll that's suppose to measure a candidates support is now meaningless but it's point is which candidate can hoard the most supporters to that poll?
...

You have a reading comprehension problem.

I said that straw polls are useless at gauging national sentiment about the political situation. Are you really arguing something different? If not, then I guess you're also delusional.

The poll is not meant as some kind of mock election. It is meant as an attempt to draw in avid supporters and gauge whose base is organized and enthused early on. They are two entirely different things. It's about who can stuff the ballot box, and who's strong enough to do so.



"How do we for our own propaganda to spread Ron's message as far and wide as we can which will portray him as the best candidate to win the nomination?"

I honestly and absolutely have no idea what you're trying to say. How do we for?

Lastly, I hope you don't take this as an attempt at being petty. I'm trying to understand what you're saying and failing. Part of it is the distracting way you exchange "its" and "it's," blurring your meaning. I think I understand your point, but those of us who don't diminish this article are not somehow brainwashed idiots. You're talking about spreading the message far and wide, and media articles which are less than critical of us are a help there.

This woman's worse "criticisms" are that we are single-minded and organized when it comes to getting something done. The second quote you offered talks about how supporters of Ron Paul are there to... support Ron Paul. Ouch! Scathing! ;) I see that as differentiating us from the typical GOP, even as we have an opportunity to make a showing at GOP event. I don't see the overwhelmingly negative article that you see. I suppose I'm delusional because I don't think this article is not so influential as to destroy the credibility of a CPAC win.

[MelissaWV]

Look MelissaWV, a comment of the article:

Oh noes! Does this mean we will lose the internetz?

You seriously have yet to point out where that thinking is in error.

CPAC *is* stacked in favor of Ron Paul (few people in the GOP have a following that hasn't dropped off in the past few years, and our grassroots system tends to send people who're going to vote). Fanaticism for Paul *is* rampant. Aren't we a part of it? The straw polls *are* a joke. They still get mentioned on the news, though, and it's still a gathering of candidates, potential candidates, and primary-related voters, so it's not a waste of time.

No one is under any impression that Paul winning CPAC would make him a shoe-in for winning the GOP nod.

[hazek]

"How do we form our own propaganda to spread Ron's message as far and wide as we can which will portray him as the best candidate to win the nomination?"

Typo..

[hazek]

YThe poll is not meant as some kind of mock election. It is meant as an attempt to draw in avid supporters and gauge whose base is organized and enthused early on. They are two entirely different things. It's about who can stuff the ballot box, and who's strong enough to do so.

Ah yes it is! But when Rommneybots come out in force and win it it's valid. But when we do it, it's just us obsessed Paulbots who don't have better things to do then organize to win straw polls.

Don't you see this?!

[hazek]

I don't see the overwhelmingly negative article that you see. I suppose I'm delusional because I don't think this article is not so influential as to destroy the credibility of a CPAC win.

I wish you'd learn from history:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeCkZyx83m8

[hazek]

You seriously have yet to point out where that thinking is in error.

It's an error because ALL the previous years it had credibility when Romney won it but not that Ron's supporters show up to support him, reporters go out of their way to mention this and destroy the validity of the poll when in fact I'm confident Romneys supporters did the same damned thing all those previous years!

[hazek]

You seriously have yet to point out where that thinking is in error.

And it's an error because you and many others around here now jump up and down from joy thinking this is great coverage and just what we needed to further promote Ron instead of spending your time and energy on actual promotion of his message.

[hazek]

Look, this will be my last post but please if you read anything read this one.

All I want is for our attitude towards the media to change. Instead of expecting a fair coverage and their help and doing things to achieve that please realize the media for what it is and stop wasting precious time and energy with it.

There's so much we could achieve in changing the nation if we redistributed all this energy into different methods of spreading the message if only you'd stop paying attention to it.

[teacherone]

I'm glad it's your last post hazek.

Ms. Hunt-- if you managed to read through these 6 pages of mostly BS I would like to thank you for writing a fair and accurate portrait of Ron Paul's supporters and their enthusiasm for their candidate.

We will expect more visitors to our home here at Liberty forest because of you-- we will give them all a warm welcome.

I hope you visit again and join in the conversation.

Sincerely,

teacherone

[Cowlesy]

"Timid men reporters prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

You ventured into the Liberty Forest, Kasie, and made it out with a good article.

Thanks for stopping by! :collins:

[Jandrsn21]

Overall, this was not a bad article. Unlike some articles or shows in the past, these reporters always seem to go out of their way to paint Paul as unlikeable, unable to win, or fringe. I did not see that from this writer. Overall the ending was the best message, we win because we are the best! Smarter, more organized, more energized, and more efficient at what we do. Getting Dr. Paul into the top of the polls has taken Dr. Paul from single digits to double digits in most states, and we still have time for more progress!

psssst stop bashing the reporter, we want more to come back!

[georgiaboy]

my expectations are always low with articles like this, and it was about what I expected. I was especially disappointed in the line that said that the top reason for the existence of RPF was to win straw polls. No mention at all of why we continue to harp on Ron Paul so fanatically. It sounds like we're just playing a political game. ugh.

The line 'unlike the other top tier candidates' doesn't necessarily mean she was calling Ron Paul a top tier candidate. It's definitely not gushing.

We're being painted as not normal conservatives, not 'doing it like everybody else', marginalized.

no.

but yes, Kasie, thanks for stopping by. Hope the real reason for RPF's to exist brushed off on you somehow.

[sailingaway]

What can be expected? If that is to change then it can begin right here on this forum as to how we treat each other. Good manners begin at home.

I'll look at my behavior if you are suggesting I'm not. I'm always open to being more polite.

However, if you are referring to the words I used in what you quoted those are direct quotes from comments I've received back on posts.

[Bruno]

Overall, this was not a bad article. Unlike some articles or shows in the past, these reporters always seem to go out of their way to paint Paul as unlikeable, unable to win, or fringe. I did not see that from this writer. Overall the ending was the best message, we win because we are the best! Smarter, more organized, more energized, and more efficient at what we do. Getting Dr. Paul into the top of the polls has taken Dr. Paul from single digits to double digits in most states, and we still have time for more progress!

psssst stop bashing the reporter, we want more to come back!

+ rep (as soon as I can!)

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

[sailingaway]

Overall, this was not a bad article. Unlike some articles or shows in the past, these reporters always seem to go out of their way to paint Paul as unlikeable, unable to win, or fringe. I did not see that from this writer. Overall the ending was the best message, we win because we are the best! Smarter, more organized, more energized, and more efficient at what we do. Getting Dr. Paul into the top of the polls has taken Dr. Paul from single digits to double digits in most states, and we still have time for more progress!

psssst stop bashing the reporter, we want more to come back!

+1776

and + rep, as well.

[2young2vote]

The negative comments about Ron don't have any substance. They are all about how he "can't win" and how he and his followers "are nutcases." Very few things annoy me more than an ignorant person bashing something they don't know anything about and don't understand.

[YumYum]

I'll look at my behavior if you are suggesting I'm not. I'm always open to being more polite.

However, if you are referring to the words I used in what you quoted those are direct quotes from comments I've received back on posts.

Change begins with me, so I wasn't directing it at you. I've noticed that when I point the finger at someone, three fingers are always pointing back at me.

[Eric21ND]

I didn't think the article was that bad.

[MelissaWV]

Look, this will be my last post but please if you read anything read this one.

All I want is for our attitude towards the media to change. Instead of expecting a fair coverage and their help and doing things to achieve that please realize the media for what it is and stop wasting precious time and energy with it.

There's so much we could achieve in changing the nation if we redistributed all this energy into different methods of spreading the message if only you'd stop paying attention to it.

1. I'm not "jumping up and down." I talked about how the article could have been better in a constructive way, and I'm more excited about how the article was written. This person came here, asked questions, took input, and even quoted members correctly. They were not on a mission to discredit the forums. They did research and didn't take third-hand info to twist into making us seem like idiots/kooks/demons. That's a good start, regardless of how the result came out. "Articles" are not superbly written these days for the most part. I am not shocked this one had its fair share of problems and half-truths.

2. Expend what energy? You keep saying that, and I keep ignoring it because the "energy" was expended by the reporter in coming here and researching her subject with courtesy and integrity.

3. Different methods of spreading the message have been tried, are being tried, and will continue to be tried. Of course, the thing you are missing is that at least SOME of the people on this website noticed Dr. Paul when he showed up on the debates, or won a poll, or was portrayed as a nut by the media.

4. Seriously, your writing style still confuses me. I can't read several of your posts. I hope you can better convey your message once you're calm :)

[hazek]

I'm a foreigner. My writing is what it is. I noticed that I sometimes leave out whole words let alone a latter here and there. I don't know why that is but it happens to me all the time even when I proof read before posting.

Please read the PM I sent you.

[StilesBC]

I don't think we should be asking for "favourable" articles. The media is supposed to be unbiased. We know they're not, but an unbiased article is all we can ask for.

We'd be hypocrites if we expected special treatment.

[Anti Federalist]

"Timid men reporters prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

You ventured into the Liberty Forest, Kasie, and made it out with a good article.

Thanks for stopping by! :collins:

Yup, that ^^^

[xd9fan]

Mods better get a handle on this duplicate thread business or it will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.



LOL OMG I love it....

[speciallyblend]

Ah yes it is! But when Rommneybots come out in force and win it it's valid. But when we do it, it's just us obsessed Paulbots who don't have better things to do then organize to win straw polls.

Don't you see this?!

everything boils down to gop establishment corruption nothing more nothing less!!

[juvanya]

Mods better get a handle on this duplicate thread business or it will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it.

[img http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/490_3.jpg/[/img]

What movie is that from?

[Anti Federalist]

What movie is that from?

Hunt for Red October

[anaconda]

Article was actually very fair and realistic. Let's look at the facts, Ron does great in Presidential straw polls and has come up short in Presidential elections. It's disappointing, but it has been true. I don't think the article did anything but voice what many people in her thread said: we have deep, enthusiatic support, we just have to work on widening the support. And one way we do it is through getting Paul media exposure through straw poll wins.

Paul did not win CPAC in 2007 or 2008. We aren't sure how well he might do in the 2012 primaries. And we don't know if there is a tipping point and what it is. There may be a point where Paul's support grows geometrically in an almost explosive pattern. It is certainly true that money and a rock star like following did not translate into a competitive amount of votes in 2008. But I think a lot of media skepticism is part of a concerned and very nervous strategy to keep him from becoming more widely popular.