Is this the first time the MSM has used "smear the supporters" as a tactic?

[Sematary]

I can't really say that I've ever seen this tactic by the media before. Usually, you see the smear campaigns by the various candidates against one another and the media lamenting yet another "dirty campaign" but I can't ever remember a time when the MSM became the smear machine against supporters.

I guess this campaign will go down in history for more than just coming from the back of the pack to win the nomination, eh? :D

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, I don't recall it either. It's just a guess, but they probably choose to attack a campaign at its most vulnerable spot. In this campaign, that would be us. Dr. Paul is about as squeaky clean as a candidate can get. :)

[tfelice]

Yeah, I don't recall it either. It's just a guess, but they probably choose to attack a campaign at its most vulnerable spot. In this campaign, that would be us. Dr. Paul is about as squeaky clean as a candidate can get. :)


I'd say that it's more than a "vulnerable spot". Some in the grassroots movement have caused it to become Paul's Achilles' heel.

[Ron LOL]

I'd say that it's more than a "vulnerable spot". Some in the grassroots movement have caused it to become Paul's Achilles' heel.
I agree. We really need to show more tact as a group when it comes to leaving comments on articles.

[torchbearer]

Yeah, I don't recall it either. It's just a guess, but they probably choose to attack a campaign at its most vulnerable spot. In this campaign, that would be us. Dr. Paul is about as squeaky clean as a candidate can get. :)

Have you noticed the trend? Every time we are attacked our numbers grow?

[Sematary]

Have you noticed the trend? Every time we are attacked our numbers grow?

I'm not saying it will work, just that I've never seen the MSM or other campaigns go after the supporters like this election cycle has shown.

[Bradley in DC]

This is a time-honored tradition. I don't approve of it, but any student of politics knows of limitless examples from the Founding Fathers through modern times, especially against Pat Buchanan to cite examples of some of our people.

There is a lot of (justifiable) frustration and anger with much of the status quo. Dr. Paul is not only tapping into that frustration but bringing a lot of new people into the process ("Dr. Paul cured my apathy."). These are good developments.

However, that combination has manifested itself into some less than desirable outcomes: a conspiracy-minded insecurity seeing every article that isn't a rave about Dr. Paul as a "hit piece" or other nonsense and people, well, creeping out the media (which is the second stupidest thing one can do after only depressing supporter turnout).

Please, for the sake of Dr. Paul's campaign, no more mass anything towards the media (emails, flowers, whatever). They're doing their job. No one said life was fair. If an individual can respond as Jesse Benton did towards Mona Charen with dispassionate facts, reasonable arguments and without personalizing anything, go for it. If not, ignore it.

[RPinSEAZ]

I can't really say that I've ever seen this tactic by the media before. Usually, you see the smear campaigns by the various candidates against one another and the media lamenting yet another "dirty campaign" but I can't ever remember a time when the MSM became the smear machine against supporters.

I guess this campaign will go down in history for more than just coming from the back of the pack to win the nomination, eh? :D

It's not often that supporters "attack" the media either through email bombs / mass poll swarming etc. Their "smearing" of the supporters seems like a natural response to our attacks. Did you actually think they'd respond kindly to you filling up their email inboxes with vulgar emails as a response to their articles?

[csen]

For better or worse campaign attacks are part of politics. Rudy and Romney certainly get their fair share -- though of course, deservedly so. I think what we're seeing is attackers using the weakest link of the Ron Paul campaign to attack -- first they could just call him a kook with a bunch of internet spammers because he was only raising modest amounts and not showing up in the polls. They tried the racist/earmark stuff but that didn't stick. Now that he's nearing double digits in the polls and over $9 million for the quarter they don't have as many options -- they can't critique the consistency of his record, the character of the individual, or the fact that there is significant support for him, so the only thing left is really the passion of the supporters. I believe the vast majority of Paul supporters are civil, passionate individuals who care deeply about this country, but as we know there are a few vocal individuals who are going to do things we'd rather they not do. As Dr. Paul would say, this is the consequence of freedom, and all we can do is watch our own actions and do our best to remind others of the importance of being civil, and hope for the best.

[terlinguatx]

...

[tfelice]

Have you noticed the trend? Every time we are attacked our numbers grow?

But has it grown at the same rate it would have if the grassroots was as squeaky clean as the candidate?

We are in the home stretch here and I would be much more confortable with Paul being in the low 20's in IA, NH & SC polls rather than in single digits.

[Jerome]

Of course they are going to do this. If you truly believe in the message, you will respond to these actions in a dignified and factual manner.

I'm sure that pretty much every RP supporter has been outraged a time or two (likely much more) over the last several months. You just have to manifest that anger into doing something positive for the campaign.

If you let them push your buttons and lose your cool - they win. That's all they are trying to do.

Diplomacy>Bombs.

[speciallyblend]

please show these vulgar emails? or any proof they came from a ron paul supporter. can someone please show any evidence of vulgar emails other then the words I SUPPORT RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT.

I always hear bitching about ron paul supporters talking Ron Paul,they are just jealous no one wants to talk about the others,i guess in some eyes thats considered vulgar

[XelR8r]

It's not often that supporters "attack" the media either through email bombs / mass poll swarming etc. Their "smearing" of the supporters seems like a natural response to our attacks. Did you actually think they'd respond kindly to you filling up their email inboxes with vulgar emails as a response to their articles?

How is voting in a poll an attack?

Let me get this straight. You're saying that some innocent, unbiased reporter posted a neutral article about Dr. Paul and then was attacked unfairly by Paul supporters? Really?

Case in point, the WSJ article begins by stating that we are banned from many sites for name calling, then they use a quote from Erickson at the end where he calls us Paultards and MoRons.

The MSM is praying that they can find traction by attacking RP supporters, they won't.
Anyone who is turned away from a candidates message by the actions of a few supporters, was never a true supporter to begin with. I say good riddance.

[RPinSEAZ]

please show these vulgar emails? or any proof they came from a ron paul supporter. can someone please show any evidence of vulgar emails other then the words I SUPPORT RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT.

I always hear bitching about ron paul supporters talking Ron Paul,they are just jealous no one wants to talk about the others,i guess in some eyes thats considered vulgar

There are plenty of examples on blog comments throughout the internet. If you haven't seen them then you haven't looked.

[speciallyblend]

There are plenty of examples on blog comments throughout the internet. If you haven't seen them then you haven't looked.

because they said so and wrote it in a blog,wow you would make a good lawyer?:) great evidence becasue someone wrote it and said so hmmmmm lets convict because i ama rudy supporter j/k just making the point,where is the proof that he was a ron paul supporter? oo because he said he was one online hmmmm yep great proof

[RPinSEAZ]

because they said so and wrote it in a blog,wow you would make a good lawyer?:) great evidence becasue someone wrote it and said so hmmmmm lets convict because i ama rudy supporter j/k just making the point,where is the proof that he was a ron paul supporter? oo because he said he was one online hmmmm yep great proof

It's irrelevant. Ron Paul supporters have been labeled as radicalized (rightly so) and the label has stuck. I have seen plenty of "let's email bomb this douchebag" on these very forums. Denying that we have people amongst us that "attack" reporters by mailbombing with vulgar language and emails intended to "strike back" at their oppressor is ridiculous. I point at the ever popular "fuck you frank" as evidence of a trend.

[pcosmar]

I'd say that it's more than a "vulnerable spot". Some in the grassroots movement have caused it to become Paul's Achilles' heel.

Yup those dang Americans are a crazy bunch.:rolleyes:

[Bruehound]

This is a time-honored tradition. I don't approve of it, but any student of politics knows of limitless examples from the Founding Fathers through modern times, especially against Pat Buchanan to cite examples of some of our people.

There is a lot of (justifiable) frustration and anger with much of the status quo. Dr. Paul is not only tapping into that frustration but bringing a lot of new people into the process ("Dr. Paul cured my apathy."). These are good developments.

However, that combination has manifested itself into some less than desirable outcomes: a conspiracy-minded insecurity seeing every article that isn't a rave about Dr. Paul as a "hit piece" or other nonsense and people, well, creeping out the media (which is the second stupidest thing one can do after only depressing supporter turnout).

Please, for the sake of Dr. Paul's campaign, no more mass anything towards the media (emails, flowers, whatever). They're doing their job. No one said life was fair. If an individual can respond as Jesse Benton did towards Mona Charen with dispassionate facts, reasonable arguments and without personalizing anything, go for it. If not, ignore it.

Yeah...what he said ^^^^

Very good advice indeed. Even the point Bradley made about excessive praise is important. In football, the crusty old veteran coach will chew out a mega rich, immature superstar for end zone dancing after a score saying simply-- "Son, act like you've been there before." If we get good coverage, act like we expect it and don't shower the author with excessive praise as that can come across as wierd. What gives a reporter satisfaction is feedback that admires and acknowledges their objectivity.

[Ron LOL]

It's irrelevant. Ron Paul supporters have been labeled as radicalized (rightly so) and the label has stuck. I have seen plenty of "let's email bomb this douchebag" on these very forums. Denying that we have people amongst us that "attack" reporters by mailbombing with vulgar language and emails intended to "strike back" at their oppressor is ridiculous. I point at the ever popular "fuck you frank" as evidence of a trend.

This is exactly the point I've been arguing over here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=40823&page=12), but it seems like it's lost on some folks.

[speciallyblend]

lets email this douchebag is sure better then what we did to the british??,the media should be thankful we havent labeled them british collabrators? if emailing people about a bad story or a total lie is a bad thing,then i guess you wouldnt of fought the british.. emails and email bombs ooo sounds so threatening. what are we debating ooo proof that any email was actually a ron paul supporter .
Will someone show me proof that a ron paul supporter wrote a letter? or made a threatening phone call other then he said he was a supporter or wrote in a blog he was a supporter? that wouldnt fly in a court of law...

it sounds like alot of bitching and not a shred of proof,other then i saw it online in a blog or someone said so.sorry not enuff in my eyes , get me names and number and court documents that prove a person was actually a ron paul supporter.i havent seen one case or documented proof.other then he said she said

i get everyone points,but like i said show one case of a documented ron paul supporter being threatening that has been proven in a court? not one yet to date other then he said she said

[Daveforliberty]

How is voting in a poll an attack?

Case in point, the WSJ article begins by stating that we are banned from many sites for name calling, then they use a quote from Erickson at the end where he calls us Paultards and MoRons.



Yes, I wrote a polite letter to the author asking, "Don't you think it's just a little ironic that they are complaining that the "Paultards" and "MoRons" are calling them names?

[RPinSEAZ]

You're completely missing the point speciallyblend and I don't care to continue wasting my time trying to make you see it.

Jesse (knows that in the media perception is truth)

[RPFTW!]

Yes, I wrote a polite letter to the author asking, "Don't you think it's just a little ironic that they are complaining that the "Paultards" and "MoRons" are calling them names?

Amen

Also remember when CNN smeared Kucinich with that UFO question in that last debate, get ready for a white nationalist / stormfront smear at this upcoming CNN debate, I know they are going to do their best to get him, I know he will be well prepared though.

[Ron LOL]

Amen

Also remember when CNN smeared Kucinich with that UFO question in that last debate, get ready for a white nationalist / stormfront smear at this upcoming CNN debate, I know they are going to do their best to get him, I know he will be well prepared though.

I hope that they do bring this up. I've posted roughly the same before, but we all know that this claim just doesn't stand up to criticism. If anything, the question will utterly backfire because Ron Paul didn't write the remarks but still took responsibility for them.

[RPFTW!]

I hope that they do bring this up. I've posted roughly the same before, but we all know that this claim just doesn't stand up to criticism. If anything, the question will utterly backfire because Ron Paul didn't write the remarks but still took responsibility for them.

I agree, and also no hard feeling I get pretty angry, I regret calling you a punk, I know you are doing what you believe is right. :)

[Ron LOL]

I agree, and also no hard feeling I get pretty angry, I regret calling you a punk, I know you are doing what you believe is right. :)

<3

[JAYCEE]

I remember a show called "CNN Live" that was hosted by Bobby Batista way back in the early 90s. She had Larry Pratt (a Buchanan supporter) on and really did a hatchet job on him. She kept calling him a nazi and she kept interrupting when he would try to speak. Then, and this was the galling part, she actually turned his microphone off so he could not be heard.

Bobby Batista was a media terrorist if ever there was one.

I don't think they could get away with that today. They've lost power and they know it. They really are holding their fire on RP for the most part. When they really start to attack him as a racist, nazi, etc, that's when his popularity will go through the roof.

[paulitics]

Attacking the supporters as being fringe, and wacky will seem weak when we raise another 4million + come dec 16th. It just won't add up with 50,000 or more individual donors. The media will further lose their credibility.

[slantedview]

The WSJ article gave me a good laugh. I'm not sure exactly what the point of the piece was.

[speciallyblend]

You're completely missing the point speciallyblend and I don't care to continue wasting my time trying to make you see it.

Jesse (knows that in the media perception is truth)

im not missing any points I GET IT ,i do but your arguing over what someone else said or posted prove to me that person truly is a ron paul supporter??

hell some bitch just because we say we are ron paul supporters ,can i get a big whining for that one

I TRULY GET THE POINT,but i havent seen anyone cross any lines,yes there is passion and even anger,but that isnt threatening especially when the people complaining are the liars;)

I TRULY GET EVERYONES POINTS,and im telling you mine,so until i see a person that has been 100% identified as a ron paul supporter,to me it sounds like a bunch of crap......... only people bitchin are neo-cons republicans/hillary dems/ and media with there noses so far up their asses(neo-con republicans/hillary dems) there only attack is to make them up.. so someone posted something negative then put rons name on it,makes it so???
trust me i get it,sounds like a catch 22 of bitching ,


you should be posting this crap on hannitys site,since i think its more neo-cons posing as ron paul supporters,of course i dont have proof either way nor do you,unless you personally know someone.

[centure7]

I can't really say that I've ever seen this tactic by the media before. Usually, you see the smear campaigns by the various candidates against one another and the media lamenting yet another "dirty campaign" but I can't ever remember a time when the MSM became the smear machine against supporters.

I guess this campaign will go down in history for more than just coming from the back of the pack to win the nomination, eh? :D

This could be because this is the first time that reporters actually get massively attacked (verbally) when they say something insulting and wrong about a candidate. If a reporter is unfair to Ron Paul we actually cream the reporter pretty good, and occasionally get them into trouble (Glenn Beck). Every time we suggest writting to correct a reporter we should refrain from personal insults (as hard as that is!) and focus on the facts and be polite. I believe that this could prevent the media from attacking us.

[RPFTW!]

This could be because this is the first time that reporters actually get massively attacked (verbally) when they say something insulting and wrong about a candidate. If a reporter is unfair to Ron Paul we actually cream the reporter pretty good, and occasionally get them into trouble (Glenn Beck). Every time we suggest writting to correct a reporter we should refrain from personal insults (as hard as that is!) and focus on the facts and be polite. I believe that this could prevent the media from attacking us.

I love it!

[torchbearer]

This could be because this is the first time that reporters actually get massively attacked (verbally) when they say something insulting and wrong about a candidate. If a reporter is unfair to Ron Paul we actually cream the reporter pretty good, and occasionally get them into trouble (Glenn Beck). Every time we suggest writting to correct a reporter we should refrain from personal insults (as hard as that is!) and focus on the facts and be polite. I believe that this could prevent the media from attacking us.

Do you personally know someone who has abusively attacked a reporter? I don't.

[rockwell]

Have you noticed the trend? Every time we are attacked our numbers grow?

Point taken.

People love an underdog and even the dimmest among us sense that the MSM has been systemically lying and manipulating public opinion.

You may disagree, but this may be the straw that breaks the camel's (MSM) back.

[torchbearer]

Point taken.

People love an underdog and even the dimmest among us sense that the MSM has been systemically lying and manipulating public opinion.

You may disagree, but this may be the straw that breaks the camel's (MSM) back.

QFT. The media may well be attacking its own viewing audience... and thus have destroyed the charade that has allowed them to wield such influence for so long... their gasp to hold on to power has exposed them.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

lol we're famous, this is the first time that supporters of a candidate are being attacked, it's a bit strange.. but I'd rather have them focus on attacking us then Dr. Paul anyways

[torchbearer]

lol we're famous, this is the first time that supporters of a candidate are being attacked, it's a bit strange.. but I'd rather have them focus on attacking us then Dr. Paul anyways

I've been recruiting more people because of it.
I am a well known politician in my area of the state... people know me as a kind soul and a great human being... when they find out the media has been calling me a terrorist and hater of america, they start to distrust the media... and start listening to the things i'm telling them.

[Ozwest]

For Real: These are desperate attacks, that even the zombie masses will figure out.

Get on with the job, and leave the lunch - time pork rind snackers up to their own devices.

[James R]

Do you personally know someone who has abusively attacked a reporter? I don't.

I've seen Ron Paul supporters on this forum get verbally abusive with another.

Example: look what dircha said about me yesterday:
dircha
Posts: 815
"You know precisely jack and shit. [...] like a wolf preying on other supporters for your own smug self-satisfaction based on your own uninformed opinion."

If dircha is this rude and condescending to me I can't imagine what he would write to a reporter who just said awful things about Ron Paul. I seem to remember reporters mentioning "nasty emails" or something like that. You wouldn't say that if they were all polite.

[Taco John]

This is a time-honored tradition. I don't approve of it, but any student of politics knows of limitless examples from the Founding Fathers through modern times, especially against Pat Buchanan to cite examples of some of our people.

There is a lot of (justifiable) frustration and anger with much of the status quo. Dr. Paul is not only tapping into that frustration but bringing a lot of new people into the process ("Dr. Paul cured my apathy."). These are good developments.

However, that combination has manifested itself into some less than desirable outcomes: a conspiracy-minded insecurity seeing every article that isn't a rave about Dr. Paul as a "hit piece" or other nonsense and people, well, creeping out the media (which is the second stupidest thing one can do after only depressing supporter turnout).

Please, for the sake of Dr. Paul's campaign, no more mass anything towards the media (emails, flowers, whatever). They're doing their job. No one said life was fair. If an individual can respond as Jesse Benton did towards Mona Charen with dispassionate facts, reasonable arguments and without personalizing anything, go for it. If not, ignore it.



I have a lot of respect for you Brad, but I disagree with the perspective that says that we should just sit back and take it when they act unfairly towards our movement.

If the media is going to put into the American Thought Stream that "Huckabee is considered to be a more serious candidate," then they need to be held accountable for this statement. If we don't hold them accountable, who will?

I can show you $4.3 million reasons vs. $230k why Ron Paul should be considered to be a more serious candidate than Mike Huckabee.

It's my opinion that organizing in the Grass Roots forum to contact the media is a legitimate function of the Grass Roots forum. This forum is a virtual free market of ideas, and people buy or sell those ideas either by giving (or refusing to give) their time to them.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the kind of thing that *should* be happening in a decentralized, Internet age political movement -- not only now, but well into the future (whether Dr. Paul wins the presidency or not). The way I see it, we don't have much choice, because if we get quiet, the whole thing will go away and we'll be left once again on the outside looking in.