7/22 NYtimes article online

[jorger]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/NYTimes_article_on_Ron_Paul

enjoy.

[qednick]

WOW WOW WOW. It's unfortunate that the last 3 or 4 paragraphs (page 5) ruin what is truly a fantastic piece on RP - especially the "will never be president" part - which I'm getting tired of hearing.

The bit about RP's opinion on abortion (page 3) raised my eyebrows. Previously I've been fairly pro-choice but RP's words on this have literally changed my tune.

[Slugg]

WOW WOW WOW. It's unfortunate that the last 3 or 4 paragraphs (page 5) ruin what is truly a fantastic piece on RP - especially the "will never be president" part - which I'm getting tired of hearing.

The bit about RP's opinion on abortion (page 3) raised my eyebrows. Previously I've been fairly pro-choice but RP's words on this have literally changed my tune.

I dunno about the 'last four' parapraphs part...I don't think it did much damage. Let's be real. Anyone who would actually read that far into it will either A) Agree with him and over look the 'weirdos' spin.
B)Disagree with him already and not care
C)Be unsure, but smart enough to ignore that.

I think the 'weirdos' spin is only dangerous when used in passing. I'm probably over thinking though.

It is better than the ABC "This Week" show was.

[nullvalu]

...not to mention most americans love an underdog.. it will just create more interest into his campaign.. overall i think that's a great peice in a huge paper.. should we start a "thanks" campaign to the author/editor?

[qednick]

I dunno about the 'last four' parapraphs part...I don't think it did much damage. Let's be real. Anyone who would actually read that far into it will either A) Agree with him and over look the 'weirdos' spin.
B)Disagree with him already and not care
C)Be unsure, but smart enough to ignore that.

I think the 'weirdos' spin is only dangerous when used in passing. I'm probably over thinking though.

It is better than the ABC "This Week" show was.

Yeah I'm not saying it was bad. It's just unfortunate that those last parts make me give the writer an A- instead of the AAAA++++ it almost was.

I hope tons of people read it. It will help garner a LOT of new support from those who previously hadn't heard of RP.

[DisabledVet]

But remember with Ron Paul....all they have to do is hear or read his name...and the rest is pretty much done if they do any research at all...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why doesn't Ron Paul sue for all of this defamation?

[nullvalu]

Why doesn't Ron Paul sue for all of this defamation?

He's not a newcomer to this kind of scrutiny, I doubt it even bothers him.. He knows we're out here setting the records straight in whatever ways we can.

[spacebetween]

After finally reading the whole article for myself, I was very pleased, actually.

Despite the last paragraph stating that Ron Paul won't win, it definitely was very favorable. For almost every single accusation against Ron, the author also printed Dr. Paul's own rebuttal. How many journalists do that??

I don't believe the author of this article was directly calling supporters "wackos," either. Instead, I think he was making the point that so many people of conflicting opinion find common ground in Ron Paul -- even those who some may consider wackos. And really, it seems that anyone different from ourselves is, in fact, wacko. That's how people are. You're different from me? Why don't you believe the same thing I do? That must make you weird.

Now, after reading it, it is clear that when Drudge posted a link earlier saying the NY Times called Ron Paul supporters wackos, he was doing that to smear Ron's name. No wonder he removed it...