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...391_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.

[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/showthr...ny-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?:

[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...#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...#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