Good Washington Post Op Ed Piece Today

[alsis8xmy]

It's interesting to track how the chance of Ron Paul winning has reluctantly grown in the Op Ed pages of the WP.

Now we're up to
"Ron Paul may lose next year's battle -- though not without a memorable fight..."

Great Op Ed on balance though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html

[kaligula]

Since Gillespie and Welch are libertarians who write for Reason Mag, it's not surprising it's favorable piece...

[hasan]

good piece

[llepard]

good piece

Remember to send them thank you emails.

LWL

[ItsTime]

too bad all the bad press is kept at the top of the forum and things like this are kept at the bottom.

[terlinguatx]

...

[Apauled]

Great Piece for inside the beltway. It shows you that "They" really do understand the impact and strength RP has.

[acstichter]

The same two authors are doing an online discussion on Tuesday the 27th on the same topic. Submit your questions or comments in advance:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/11/21/DI2007112101734.html

"Editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie and columnist and associate editor Matt Welch of Reason Magazine will be online Tuesday, Nov. 27 at noon ET to examine the apparent reinvigoration of the Libertarian movement and its potential impact on the 2008 presidential election and beyond."

[drexhex]

I think I went a little too far in my thank-you email, hehe...


I have never done this before, but I felt it was necessary given the circumstances. I wish to thank you for the incredibly insightful article on Ron Paul's campaign. Not many news organizations have given him the chance to win that he deserves, so it always brings a smile to my face and gives me hope when I read an article about Ron Paul that portrays him in an honest and positive light.

Even though I am just a college student, I have been doing my share to help his campaign. Whether it be to hand out fliers, talk to random people in the street, hold up signs, or just shout the truths that I hold dear to my heart. I've always been interested in politics, ever since the 2000 election when I was only 11 years old, and now that I am actually involved and am getting thousands of converts (that's not an overstatement, by the way) to the Ron Paul R[evol]ution, it makes me overjoyed to think that I am actually making a difference in today's world.

Ron Paul's message of freedom and security is catching on. Out of the several thousand people that I have talked to about Ron Paul, I have had two people completely shut me down and say that I was ruining America. And it's those two people that I could see voting for Rudy or Hillary in the next election, which would throw us into a bigger deficit and, if we last long enough, WWIII. However, it makes me think - how many other candidates are able to say that they can convert thousands of people and only have one or two opponents? Whether it be on the Republican or Democrat side, I don't think anyone can say that besides Dr. Paul, and here's why:

Mitt Romney will not get the Christian vote because he is Mormon. He will also not get the anti-war vote (over 70% of the American people) because he favors the war. He will not get any third-party votes because of his stance on oil, the national ID card, and abortion.

Rudy Giuliani can't even get the FDNY vote. In fact, they hate him enough to campaign against Rudy! He is pro-war, which, like Romney, makes him unelectable. He also loses the Christian vote because he favors abortion (even partial-birth, which libertarians are even against sometimes!) and because he has been married 3 times.

John McCain can't get the anti-war vote. Also, something that didn't make the news but I had the pleasure of seeing first-hand at UPenn earlier this week, when a student from Peru got up to ask a question about trading with Latin America, McCain answered with free trade agreements and then told the student, and I quote, "I've heard enough out of you. Go sit down now." That lost the vote of anyone in the room and their friends/family. It will spread farther, but it will take time due to it being word-of-mouth.

Fred Thompson can't campaign. Nobody really likes him, he just has name recognition going for him. He doesn't actually take a stance on anything, and did terribly in the debate(s?) he attended.

Also, all of the republican candidates, save for Ron Paul, have refused to take a nuclear option off the table for a preemptive strike against Iran. That, to me (and to Dr. Paul) is preposterous.

As for the Democratic side...

Hillary Clinton will not be elected. The Christian right will never vote for her. She is as pro-war as Bush, and refuses to say whether or not she will leave Iraq by 2013! She flip-flopped live on national TV on the issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants (what is her stance this morning?), and supports the National ID card. She wants socialized healthcare, which will just throw us deeper into a deficit than we already have. Also, she refuses to say how she is going to fix the problems we have in this country, whether it be the deficit, Social Security, or illegal immigration. All she ever says is "I'm against -----" or "I'm for -----," but she has never said, and will never say, how she plans to fix the issue! She points out the problem without providing a solution, and that gets cheers from the sheeple... err, I mean people listening.

Barack Obama is on of the only other candidates besides Ron Paul that I can see being elected. The only things that I think will cause him to not be elected are his stance on Iraq (also refuses to say he would leave by 2013) and, I hate to say it, his race. I am not confident that this country is ready for an African-American President, and I fear for his life if he gets into office. If something were to happen to him, it would rip this country apart and throw us into the next Civil War.

John Edwards does not have the following he should. He has actually spoken against the war, and against the war on our freedoms. However, he is a flip-flopper at times and his name is associated with John Kerry now, so he may not be able to get America to rally behind him.

Dennis Kucinich is the closest candidate to Ron Paul out of everyone, and therefore it makes sense that he has the second-largest grassroots support in New Hampshire and Iowa. It's not the man, it's the message. He could be considered more libertarian than Ron Paul. He wants to end the war on drugs, wants to leave Iraq immediately, wants an open border (kinda), but also (and this is the only thing about him that I can find that isn't libertarian) wants socialized medicine.

Everyone who wants socialized medicine has refused to say how they plan to pay for it. They also refuse to talk about the Canadians that come down here in order to get surgery! Socialized healthcare has never treated a country well and has only thrown countries into deficits. It's a great idea on paper, but, like Communism, will never work due to human nature.

Ron Paul seeks to end all the things that are causing us to fall as a country. The war in Iraq, which is supposed to cost $2 trillion and which we are borrowing from China to fund, the Departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Defense, the CIA, the IRS, and many, many other government programs that are there to, as Dr. Paul put it so eloquently, "carry us from cradle to grave." America is tired of that. We don't want our tax dollars funding a war we don't support. We don't want the Department of Education, with its No Child Left Behind Act, holding back our children's knowledge and education. We don't want the Department of Energy doing the "research" on alternative fuels when it has been private citizens that have made the breakthroughs. We don't want the DEA raiding our grandmothers for a prescribed medicine that is legal on the state level. We don't want wiretaps. We don't want to give up our liberty for security (Thomas Jefferson said that "When you give up liberty for security, you lose both," which was echoed by Dr. Paul in a debate). We want our country back, we want it now, and that is exactly what Ron Paul will do.

Ron Paul's following is not over after the election. If he does not win (which I actually think he has a helluva chance at), our movement will go on. The R[evol]ution will not falter because our first hero failed. We will continue, even if we have to make our own political party. If the Republicans win the 2008 election without Ron Paul being their candidate, you can say goodbye to the Republican Party, and we will be there to fill its place.

Join us. The grass is much greener on this side of the playing field.

Thank you again for such a great article, and I apologize for the length of this email. I did write it all out just now, but I only meant for it to be a "thank you" email rather than a political manifesto. I guess that's what happens when you join in on the R[evol]ution. Ron Paul cured many people's apathy, and I know his message is a strong one. He's catching on, and I think that the media will be pleasantly surprised when he raises another $5-6 million on December 16th (the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party), and when he wins Iowa and New Hampshire.

Again, sorry for the length, but I hope you had the time to read it. Thank you for your article and your time. It is much appreciated.

Eric *********

[propanes]

This is about as favorable as it gets in a major paper like the Wash. Post.

There may be a few errors as Ron Paul doesn't want a fence along the southern boarder.

[skinzterpswizfan]

bump

From the looks of it, this will be on the front page of the B section in the Sunday paper. Nice...

[Stealth4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html

With a mention and picture on the front page of the paper.

[torchbearer]

That is the best article I have read in this campaign thus far...

[kylejack]

Its one of our libertarian peeps from Reason, which is why it seems so nice. :)

[eloquensanity]

too bad all the bad press is kept at the top of the forum and things like this are kept at the bottom.

Yes I agree. It seems we have a few people on here who like to stress the negative, we see it in the way they try to put down new grass roots ideas and try to bump all the negative topics and outright lies. Usually it ends in the real supporters becoming distracted and fighting amongst themselves

Just have to keep a healthy scepticism about the motives of some posters ;)

[torchbearer]

bump

[curtisag]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html

This is one of the best mainstream articles on Paul yet. They focus a bit too much on libertarianism, but it's 95% positive for Paul. We are a force to be reckoned with and they now realize it.

[PatriotOne]

A great article indeed. It has been posted already earlier so don't be surprised if your thread disappears.

[slantedview]

Its one of our libertarian peeps from Reason, which is why it seems so nice. :)
Make no mistake though, the folks at Reason still are NOT supporting Dr. Paul (nor anyone else).

A few months back, Nick Gillespie was on Bill Moyer's show, and Bill asked him something along the lines of which Presidential candidate most embodied his views/beliefs. He couldn't/wouldn't name one.

I know Ron isn't a true libertarian in the sense that the folks at Reason claim to be, but, come on....