Please help me 'Drudge' Michael Scheuer's latest article endorsing Ron Paul.

[Deborah K]

http://non-intervention.com/

RPFs had an exclusive on it for a full day because Mike was having technical difficulties publishing it on his site. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content.php?1260-Michael-Scheuer-endorses-Ron-Paul-and-his-foreign-policy-Article
He gave it me and later to Lew Rockwell, who also published it. Now it is on his site, but we need the media to pick it up and get him on so he can help the public understand why Ron's foreign policy is the right one. After all, he was an insider for 22 years - and the CIA head of the Bin Laden unit - not to mention a best selling author of four books and an expert on foreign policy and the middle east.

Michael Gerson wrote a hit piece on Ron yesterday that has Michael Scheuer fit to be tied.http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-quest-to-undo-the-party-of-lincoln/2011/12/30/gIQAOrlyUP_story.html He plans to write a response to it today, and you know it will be scathing.

Please help?

[KCIndy]

Deborah, just to be clear, this is the article you would like to see sent to Drudge, correct? (I'm just trying to verify before I send it!)

http: //non-intervention.com/1018/iowa%E2%80%99s-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/


And it's a great article - everyone should read this!

[Deborah K]

Deborah, just to be clear, this is the article you would like to see sent to Drudge, correct? (I'm just trying to verify before I send it!)

http: //non-intervention.com/1018/iowa%E2%80%99s-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/


And it's a great article - everyone should read this!

Yep, that one. If it draws any interest at all from the MSM, they might have him on to try and discredit him, but he would like nothing more than to publicly defend Ron's stance, regardless of any attack on him. The man is a patriot, a lover of freedom. He needs to be heard by fence-sitters because of Ron's foreign policy.

[KCIndy]

It's a great article!


I just sent it in to Drudge. C'mon, folks, it takes about ten seconds to do this!! :)

[Deborah K]

+rep KC! Thanks. Folks, please be sure to mention that he endorses Ron when you link the article.

[angelatc]

Can someone tell me exactly what I need to do - do I need to email the link somewhere, or what?

[FA.Hayek]

rep and drudged

[Okie RP fan]

Can someone tell me exactly what I need to do - do I need to email the link somewhere, or what?

Go to drudgereport.com and down towards the middle of the page on the right side there is a blank box that says "send news tips to Drudge" just paste the link in there.

[Deborah K]

And if it's not too much trouble, please show your support of Mike's choice by commenting on his web site.

[BKom]

Deborah, just to be clear, this is the article you would like to see sent to Drudge, correct? (I'm just trying to verify before I send it!)

http: //non-intervention.com/1018/iowa%E2%80%99s-choice-dr-paul-or-u-s-bankruptcy-more-wars-and-many-more-dead-soldiers-and-marines/


And it's a great article - everyone should read this!

Sorry to say, but this is not a great outreach article for Ron. Scheuer is a pretty clever guy, but his language is poorly selected. Elitist feminism? Crazed feminism? Really? Saying that we don't want honor killing, death for rape victims and girls murdered because they want to learn how to read is crazed, elitist feminism?

I don't think Scheuer is very good at hiding his agenda, which is not an attractive agenda. And he is constantly Israel bashing. I think the idea is not to bash Israel, but to be non-interventionist so the sides will work things out on their own. In fact, the U.S. government has held Israel back from defending itself hundreds of times. Only during the idiot GW Bush's reign did the U.S. start to publicly defend every single thing Israel did. Scheuer goes too far the other way and seems to expose his own bias. This might attract a few people who actually hate Israel, but the vast majority of people in Iowa and in this country don't hate Israel. They actually want to see the Arabs and Israelis work things out peacefully. Shouldn't that be the goal? Of course it should, so that's what you say when you're trying to attract these people to support Ron.

All he needs to say is that GW and the congress, and McCain/Romney/Santorum/Bachmann types have delivered Iraq to Iran, giftwrapped it, and managed to lose over 4,000 U.S. lives and trillions of dollars to do it. He can say we taught Iran that they needed nuclear weapons because we destroyed Quadafi shortly after he gave them up. And he can say that Ron is correct that sanctions are a provocative act of war, and the proof is what's happening in the Straight of Hormuz right now.

He can say those things without sounding so darn angry and so hateful toward women and Israel. I know he means well, but he needs to be as far away from Ron as possible until he curbs his tendency to alienate exactly the people he's trying to persuade. Heck, I agree with him and I still want to punch him in the face every time he opens his mouth.

[BLS]

Sorry to say, but this is not a great outreach article for Ron. Scheuer is a pretty clever guy, but his language is poorly selected. Elitist feminism? Crazed feminism? Really? Saying that we don't want honor killing, death for rape victims and girls murdered because they want to learn how to read is crazed, elitist feminism?

I don't think Scheuer is very good at hiding his agenda, which is not an attractive agenda. And he is constantly Israel bashing. I think the idea is not to bash Israel, but to be non-interventionist so the sides will work things out on their own. In fact, the U.S. government has held Israel back from defending itself hundreds of times. Only during the idiot GW Bush's reign did the U.S. start to publicly defend every single thing Israel did. Scheuer goes too far the other way and seems to expose his own bias. This might attract a few people who actually hate Israel, but the vast majority of people in Iowa and in this country don't hate Israel. They actually want to see the Arabs and Israelis work things out peacefully. Shouldn't that be the goal? Of course it should, so that's what you say when you're trying to attract these people to support Ron.

All he needs to say is that GW and the congress, and McCain/Romney/Santorum/Bachmann types have delivered Iraq to Iran, giftwrapped it, and managed to lose over 4,000 U.S. lives and trillions of dollars to do it. He can say we taught Iran that they needed nuclear weapons because we destroyed Quadafi shortly after he gave them up. And he can say that Ron is correct that sanctions are a provocative act of war, and the proof is what's happening in the Straight of Hormuz right now.

He can say those things without sounding so darn angry and so hateful toward women and Israel. I know he means well, but he needs to be as far away from Ron as possible until he curbs his tendency to alienate exactly the people he's trying to persuade. Heck, I agree with him and I still want to punch him in the face every time he opens his mouth.

Then don't drudge the F'ing link. Jeez.
Everybody's got an f'ing opinion.

[Crotale]

Drudged.

[gjdavis60]

Drudged!

[Deborah K]

Sorry to say, but this is not a great outreach article for Ron. Scheuer is a pretty clever guy, but his language is poorly selected. Elitist feminism? Crazed feminism? Really? Saying that we don't want honor killing, death for rape victims and girls murdered because they want to learn how to read is crazed, elitist feminism?

I don't think Scheuer is very good at hiding his agenda, which is not an attractive agenda. And he is constantly Israel bashing. I think the idea is not to bash Israel, but to be non-interventionist so the sides will work things out on their own. In fact, the U.S. government has held Israel back from defending itself hundreds of times. Only during the idiot GW Bush's reign did the U.S. start to publicly defend every single thing Israel did. Scheuer goes too far the other way and seems to expose his own bias. This might attract a few people who actually hate Israel, but the vast majority of people in Iowa and in this country don't hate Israel. They actually want to see the Arabs and Israelis work things out peacefully. Shouldn't that be the goal? Of course it should, so that's what you say when you're trying to attract these people to support Ron.

All he needs to say is that GW and the congress, and McCain/Romney/Santorum/Bachmann types have delivered Iraq to Iran, giftwrapped it, and managed to lose over 4,000 U.S. lives and trillions of dollars to do it. He can say we taught Iran that they needed nuclear weapons because we destroyed Quadafi shortly after he gave them up. And he can say that Ron is correct that sanctions are a provocative act of war, and the proof is what's happening in the Straight of Hormuz right now.

He can say those things without sounding so darn angry and so hateful toward women and Israel. I know he means well, but he needs to be as far away from Ron as possible until he curbs his tendency to alienate exactly the people he's trying to persuade. Heck, I agree with him and I still want to punch him in the face every time he opens his mouth.

Mike is blatant, but I think it's a little hypersensitive to claim he bashes Israel or he's a jew hater. C'mon. And as far as the feminism issue, his point is, who are we to go into another country that has, for centuries combined religion and state, and dictate to them how to run their country when it comes to their traditions regarding women? As a woman, I find their practices appalling, but I'm not interested in bullying any country into doing my bidding the way Clinton is doing. A child knows that if you bully someone into something, you breed resentment, and in this case, blowback. Please.

As Scheuer puts it in his article:


We, the British, the Australians, and the Canadians have been building our republics/democracies since Magna Charta in 1215 — that is for nearly 800 years — and we are not yet perfect.........what we have not fully accomplished in eight centuries cannot possibly be attained in Egypt, Afghanistan, or elsewhere in the Muslim world in 6 weeks, 6 months, or six years, not least because none of those places separate church from state.

[BKom]

Deborah - I don't disagree with what Mike says. It's how he says it. But calling people who hate how the Muslim world treats women crazed or elitist is not the same thing as saying we have no authority to intervene. And I don't think I ever said he was a Jew hater. I don't know him, so I don't really know if that's true or false. But the article is certainly written in a way that would attract that particular demographic and turn off the majority of people Ron is trying to attract. And isn't that the point of Ron running? To attract rather than repel the most people by promoting non-ineterventionist foreign policy? This article doesn't do a great job of accomplishing the goal.

[Deborah K]

Bump

[BKom]

Then don't drudge the F'ing link. Jeez.
Everybody's got an f'ing opinion.

Yeah, I guess everyone's got an f'ing opinion. But saying that doesn't exactly explain where I'm wrong. And I can tell you that this article will repel rather than attract the support Ron is seeking. It's not what he concludes, but how he says it. And saying "don't Drudge the link" is akin to saying nothing because, as you know, a bunch of people will simply do it because it was suggested here by a well intentioned poster. And it will help Ron not at all. But hey, everyone's got an f'ing opinion, right?

[Deborah K]

Deborah - I don't disagree with what Mike says. It's how he says it. But calling people who hate how the Muslim world treats women crazed or elitist is not the same thing as saying we have no authority to intervene. And I don't think I ever said he was a Jew hater. I don't know him, so I don't really know if that's true or false. But the article is certainly written in a way that would attract that particular demographic and turn off the majority of people Ron is trying to attract. And isn't that the point of Ron running? To attract rather than repel the most people by promoting non-ineterventionist foreign policy? This article doesn't do a great job of accomplishing the goal.

I don't agree. And if you think he doesn't make his point well with regard to Clinton, I don't know how else anyone would discern his report of three of her offices being shut down for intervening in domestic affairs any other way than that she's pushing a feminist agenda. That is NOT our job!!! What part of non-intervention don't you get???? You don't change hearts and minds by pushing people around.


[NB: Three offices of Mrs. Clinton’s elitist democracy/feminism crusade in Cairo were raided and shut by Egyptian authorities on 28 December 2011 for intervening in Egypt’s domestic affairs.]

Scheuer is too brazen for some people. Oh well.....

[Deborah K]

Yeah, I guess everyone's got an f'ing opinion. But saying that doesn't exactly explain where I'm wrong. And I can tell you that this article will repel rather than attract the support Ron is seeking. It's not what he concludes, but how he says it. And saying "don't Drudge the link" is akin to saying nothing because, as you know, a bunch of people will simply do it because it was suggested here by a well intentioned poster. And it will help Ron not at all. But hey, everyone's got an f'ing opinion, right?

Well it's out there now, you can't stop it. And besides, I think you're dead wrong.

[BLS]

Yeah, I guess everyone's got an f'ing opinion. But saying that doesn't exactly explain where I'm wrong. And I can tell you that this article will repel rather than attract the support Ron is seeking. It's not what he concludes, but how he says it. And saying "don't Drudge the link" is akin to saying nothing because, as you know, a bunch of people will simply do it because it was suggested here by a well intentioned poster. And it will help Ron not at all. But hey, everyone's got an f'ing opinion, right?

I realize that libertarianism brings out all of the different types of people. I learned that back in 07 when I worked for RP's campaign in MN.
What amazes me is the bitching people will do, regardless of whether or not it actually helps Ron Paul.

You need to ask yourself.....are you here for you, or are you here for Ron Paul?

[BKom]

I realize that libertarianism brings out all of the different types of people. I learned that back in 07 when I worked for RP's campaign in MN.
What amazes me is the bitching people will do, regardless of whether or not it actually helps Ron Paul.

You need to ask yourself.....are you here for you, or are you here for Ron Paul?

I assume this article will have little effect in the next day or so. But how arrogant are you? I worked for Ron in 1988 and 2008. Here for me? Here's the problem. I spent most of my time running the last campaign in Southern Nevada trying to talk supporters out of doing counterproductive things. I am not much of a prognosticator, but I have a bit of experience running campaigns and I do have an ear for what works and what doesn't. I don't walk through life with Ron Colored Glasses on. And this article is harsh and repellent, even as it is correct in its conclusions. And I'll go a bit further. Micheal Scheuer makes a horrible impression in print and a worse one in person. Having him support you in an interview is not helpful. He's a guy who needs to advise and stay in the background.

I am not surprised that a lot of people can't see it. But read his stuff with a non-Paulist ear and if you can be honest, you'll see it. Or maybe not. But I can tell you how non-supporters see things a lot better than most supporters. Don't know why that is, but maybe it's because I've been around this stuff for a long time and have seen what actually works and what doesn't. Oh well.

[Deborah K]

I assume this article will have little effect in the next day or so. But how arrogant are you? I worked for Ron in 1988 and 2008. Here for me? Here's the problem. I spent most of my time running the last campaign in Southern Nevada trying to talk supporters out of doing counterproductive things. I am not much of a prognosticator, but I have a bit of experience running campaigns and I do have an ear for what works and what doesn't. I don't walk through life with Ron Colored Glasses on. And this article is harsh and repellent, even as it is correct in its conclusions. And I'll go a bit further. Micheal Scheuer makes a horrible impression in print and a worse one in person. Having him support you in an interview is not helpful. He's a guy who needs to advise and stay in the background.

I am not surprised that a lot of people can't see it. But read his stuff with a non-Paulist ear and if you can be honest, you'll see it. Or maybe not. But I can tell you how non-supporters see things a lot better than most supporters. Don't know why that is, but maybe it's because I've been around this stuff for a long time and have seen what actually works and what doesn't. Oh well.


Then why oh why did Ron seek him out for a press conference in '08 to refute Guiliani's attack on him during a debate? The fact remains, Scheuer was a Washington insider for over 20 years. He knows that Ron's stance on foreign policy is the right one for the country. Mike's message and style may not resonate with everyone across the board, but it does with many.

Your opinion is duly noted.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2cfb990.jpg

[Cowlesy]

BKom I hear you, I think Mike's harsh tone against Israel was built up after spending a few decades at the CIA and seeing how the Israel lobby influences foreign policy. Given his quill has a sharp tip and he is not a punch-puller, he says exactly what he thinks about their influence on our policies.

For what it's worth, I listened to him give a speech in NYC and sat alongside my jewish friends, and a largely jewish audience, who reacted to his talk with applause. There is a growing strain of pro-Israel thinking that believes a sovereign, independent Israel, free of U.S. Aid, is a stronger Israel. I think Scheuer sees it through the lens of him being American, paying tax money, and having a good sum of that money fund all these Middle Eastern countries. A few of these countries have deep messianic/religious views of their destiny, and instead of influencing one or the other with our wealth, he thinks they should let them see whose God is stronger if they have such deep convictions.

Totally understand if you don't agree with the tone, but I find his completely blunt honesty to be refreshing.

[BKom]

Then why oh why did Ron seek him out for a press conference in '08 to refute Guiliani's attack on him during a debate? The fact remains, Scheuer was a Washington insider for over 20 years. He knows that Ron's stance on foreign policy is the right one for the country. Mike's message and style may not resonate with everyone across the board, but it does with many.

Your opinion is duly noted.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2cfb990.jpg

Because Ron's major weakness is his judgment of people. Back during the 2008 campaign the major impediment to getting him elected was the people he surrounded himself with. Happily, most of them are long gone and not hindering him this time.

I agree with Scheuer's assessment, as most supporters do. It's merely his presentation that repels. And I also understand that you and many others here will never see it.

Glad to know my opinion is duly noted. See? That's a very nice way of saying F you. You could have just said "F you" and been done with it. But you couched it more gently. Maybe you should instruct Mr. Scheuer.

[BKom]

BKom I hear you, I think Mike's harsh tone against Israel was built up after spending a few decades at the CIA and seeing how the Israel lobby influences foreign policy. Given his quill has a sharp tip and he is not a punch-puller, he says exactly what he thinks about their influence on our policies.

For what it's worth, I listened to him give a speech in NYC and sat alongside my jewish friends, and a largely jewish audience, who reacted to his talk with applause. There is a growing strain of pro-Israel thinking that believes a sovereign, independent Israel, free of U.S. Aid, is a stronger Israel. I think Scheuer sees it through the lens of him being American, paying tax money, and having a good sum of that money fund all these Middle Eastern countries. A few of these countries have deep messianic/religious views of their destiny, and instead of influencing one or the other with our wealth, he thinks they should let them see whose God is stronger if they have such deep convictions.

Totally understand if you don't agree with the tone, but I find his completely blunt honesty to be refreshing.

I hear you, too. And I hope your Jewish friends are more typical than my Jewish family and friends. Because they'd be horrified by the wording of that article, even though many of them agree with the conclusions.

And I do agree that the Israel lobby is daunting and frustrating to deal with. But an analyst has to stay objective. I think Michael lets that frustration color his language, and that's all I have a problem with. Anyone speaking for Ron, or put in that position by Ron or his supporters, needs to be cognizant of how Ron wants the message spread. I don't think Michael will ever take that into account.

[Deborah K]

Because Ron's major weakness is his judgment of people. Back during the 2008 campaign the major impediment to getting him elected was the people he surrounded himself with. Happily, most of them are long gone and not hindering him this time.

I agree with Scheuer's assessment, as most supporters do. It's merely his presentation that repels. And I also understand that you and many others here will never see it.

Glad to know my opinion is duly noted. See? That's a very nice way of saying F you. You could have just said "F you" and been done with it. But you couched it more gently. Maybe you should instruct Mr. Scheuer.

Maybe I should. I suppose the Judge has poor judgement too since he has Mike on all the time...

It's not that I don't see that his brash way of presenting his view is offensive to some. So is Tom Woods, who has now gotten under the skin of Mark Levin. The point is, Ron brings people from all over the spectrum together on the most important issue of our time - the future of this country, and the right direction to take.

[Deborah K]

I hear you, too. And I hope your Jewish friends are more typical than my Jewish family and friends. Because they'd be horrified by the wording of that article, even though many of them agree with the conclusions.

And I do agree that the Israel lobby is daunting and frustrating to deal with. But an analyst has to stay objective. I think Michael lets that frustration color his language, and that's all I have a problem with. Anyone speaking for Ron, or put in that position by Ron or his supporters, needs to be cognizant of how Ron wants the message spread. I don't think Michael will ever take that into account.

I'll pass this on to Mike. He in no way wants to harm Ron. If he gets attention for the article, I'll ask him to tone it down on the Israel rhetoric. Okay?

[BKom]

Maybe I should. I suppose the Judge has poor judgement too since he has Mike on all the time...

It's not that I don't see that his brash way of presenting his view is offensive to some. So is Tom Woods, who has now gotten under the skin of Mark Levin. The point is, Ron brings people from all over the spectrum together on the most important issue of our time - the future of this country, and the right direction to take.

I agree. And Tom Woods has rightly taken himself out of surrogate speaking for the most part. Not because he can't be a little more diplomatic, but because he's had associations that could be used against Ron. And Levin? Nobody who supports Ron would listen to that idiot except to laugh/scream at the radio. It's kind of cathartic, in both senses of the word.

The Judge is also not running for office. Why would he care how Scheuer speaks? Scheuer is not representing him, he's representing himself in those cases. If the Judge has Scheuer on as a surrogate for Ron, then yeah, he's making a mistake.

Hey, you have a great day. I'm just wasting your time now and vice versa. Let's hope Ron kills it in Iowa and on to NH.

[BKom]

I'll pass this on to Mike. He in no way wants to harm Ron. If he gets attention for the article, I'll ask him to tone it down on the Israel rhetoric. Okay?

If you have that kind of influence, it may be worth doing. Thanks for considering it.

[Deborah K]

At least read my last post before you stomp off. LOL.

Edit: I do, we're friends. I'll talk to him about it. I promise.

[BKom]

At least read my last post before you stomp off. LOL.

No stomping. We are compatriots. Go Ron.

[Deborah K]

Go Ron. +rep