• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Destroying Ron Paul from within

Tuck

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
144
I've been reading the forums for a while but this is my first time actually posting. Let me say that I am 100% behind Ron Paul and this is the first time I have ever been excited about a presidential candidate. I think this forum is a great place for all of us to get together and spread the word of Ron Paul and give him a fair chance since the mainstream media isn't really that interested in him right now. But there is one problem that I think MUST be addressed in regards to how some members go about contacting the major news organizations. You see my cousin is an assistant to a very well known news correspondent over at fox news and like most americans she never even heard about Ron Paul until she started getting emails a few months ago from supporters.

The first emails that came in were very friendly and positive with simple requests such as "I think you should interview Ron Paul" or "Ron Paul has many interesting ideas I think your viewers would be interested in more about him". Those emails made her do some research and like most of us she liked everything about Ron Paul and donated to his campaign. The last time she was over for a family dinner she commented about how passionate and positive Ron Paul's supporters are because they agree with him on nearly everything while other candidates have more support but a lot of criticism from those who do support them.

Now we fast forward to the past 2 months or so and the emails have done a complete 180 turn. Now she says 90% of the emails are negative and most make sure to mention a biased media, war mongers, neocons, and the one that makes the shows producers and hosts laugh at and ignore Ron Paul news, the 9/11 truthers. I would be willing to bet that most of us here are better educated about the issues than most of America and although words like neocon and biased media are the correct terms we need to keep in mind that when 75% of the people hear these words they immediately tie them with people who have a less than stable mentality.

I know that this is America and everybody has the freedom to say what they want, when they want but we have to keep in mind that supporters are a reflection of a presidential candidate. Imagine for just a second if Exxon, Citi bank, JP Morgan, Haliburton and Ben Bernanke (chairman of the federal reserve) all came to the debates holding up "Romney Revolution" signs. You would immediately assume that they all want him to be president because he reflects their beliefs right? Its no different for civilians who support a president and when media outlets get angry emails about how neocons control the media or the CIA is trying to silence and kill Ron Paul for wanting more investigations about 9/11 (the email came from a 9/11 truth type domain) then what do you expect the media to think about Ron Paul? Of course they are going to assume he is just a "crazy old cook" with supporters who are insane.

Yes, sorry if this insults anybodies beliefs but even though there are many people who believe 9/11 may have been an inside job many, many more will just brush you off as insane especially people who work in the mainstream media. I'm not trying to put the blame on the truth movement plenty of other people are to blame as well such as people who call the IRS a crime syndication, or say that the foreign banks own America through the federal reserve. We know these statements are pretty close to the truth but keep in mind that most of America doesn't know the same information we do and doesn't keep track of this type of stuff, even members of the media. You heard Ron Paul say it himself in Freedom to fascism that most members of banking committee and congress don't even understand it so what are the chances your average American voter has any idea?

I think we all need to try and not focus on whats wrong with the media, irs, federal reserve, the tax system etc and instead focus on whats good about Ron Paul. Instead of sending emails mentioning that the media is scared of him why not point out how many members are in his facebook group or how popular he is on youtube. Instead of focusing on how the IRS is a government racketeering operation why not focus on how Ron Paul is the most fiscally responsible member of congress. Don't point out how the federal reserve is working for the interests of large international banks instead focus on how Ron Paul wants to increase the value of the dollar and lower inflation so that we have lower interests rates and a stronger economy. Don't accuse the media of trying to hide the truth about 911 instead let them know how Ron Paul's foreign policy of non intervention will save the American tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars and how he plans to spread democracy and freedom by getting people to want to emulate us instead of spreading it through the barrel of a gun.

By the way if you guys want to really know why Ron Paul isn't mentioned in the media as much as other candidates its really simple. In the media and in politics money talks and as far as the media knows Ron Paul's bank campaign fund isn't talking as loud as the others. The same way wall street uses a companies sales numbers to estimate its value the media does the same to evaluate how interested people are in a candidate. One good thing about the minimum attention Ron Paul has received from the media is that its a lot more than others who are in the same bracket as him. If you want to help Ron Paul make sure to keep the messages positive and to donate what you can so that media realizes Ron Paul supporters are more than just youtube addicts.
 
I'm sure some critics will be along shortly, but let me just say:

Great first post. Welcome aboard!
 
I agree that keeping messages positive and focused on Ron Paul's main issues is the most likely way to increase not only media coverage but gain new voters. Nice post and welcome to the boards.
 
Another welcome to the forum Tuck! Thank you for your reflective message. :)

You're right about the need to keep things positive (or at least to come across as rational and balanced!) when contacting the media, as it's a reflection on RP.

Sometimes, however, this can be a challenge, especially when we see hatchet jobs & unabashed bias against such a good man. It just riles folks, and I think it's important to let the media, and folks like Ed Failor, know that we will call them on their shenanigans. However, you're absolutely right about the need for us to be mindful of the tone and the manner in which we present our arguments--and ourselves.

Additionally, the more we can "mainstream" RP's message to those not familiar with him, the better.

And of course, sending positive emails & phone calls to reporters and interviewers thanking them for their coverage of RP, may help encourage more positive coverage of RP. (Let's hope!)
 
Hear hear. I can't agree with you more with a very astute observation. Some how we have to reach to that 75%, we can't scare them off, the cherished thoughts of people have to change slowly. The "I know more than you so I'm better than you and if you don't believe it your stupid to see attitude"just won't work. These people in media are more entrenched with the status quo than even the average sheeple. Learning comes with time, go gently. Use Tucks positive approach. Can't a very few people figure this out. But on the other hand this massive attack of bad emails and the like could very well be orchestrated by should I say or dare should I mention "agent provocateurs" of who knows of what candidates or agencies of many alphabet soups. Meaning I think we have to be extra polite and courteous to distinguish us from them. When these media people meet us face to face they will see the difference. Also the need for a massive war chest of money because that is all they respect.Just my 2 cents.

Tuck do you think this negative approach could be something outside the Ron Paul people? good 1st post.

Well done for 1st post
 
Last edited:
Can't a very few people figure this out. But on the other hand this massive attack of bad emails and the like could very well be orchestrated by should I say or dare should I mention "agent provocateurs" of who knows of what candidates or agencies of many alphabet soups.

Yes, but it is far more likely it is not. On the other board, there were several RP supporters that were suggesting to people to call Failor's house night and day. I saw several people agree. Quite frankly, I was shocked at first. Now, I'm not so shocked. The behavior is still abhorrent. So yes, I do think it likely that there are some that are doing exactly what Tuck described.
 
I honestly do not know for sure, but it seemed like they were passionate RP supporters. At least they had quite a few posts under their belts.

Surely though, you must have seen some of the same behavior that Tuck described.
 
Beat with kindness

Something I do when I visit a site that is leaving rude abusive comments is to apologize that most Ron supporters are not like that. That could be very powerful counter force. 2 cents again
 
Something I do when I visit a site that is leaving rude abusive comments is to apologize that most Ron supporters are not like that. That could be very powerful counter force. 2 cents again

That was only from a few people, as I recall. Most weren't doing that. But, they also weren't saying it wasn't a good idea either. Anyway, it's over now.
 
There's simply no need to discuss other candidates. Everyone knows what they are all about.

There also is no need to discuss media bias. They likely wouldn't care. It might be interesting to link the Youtube Video showing the post-debate bias, and politely ask for more fair or accurate coverage of the good Doctor. After all, our taxes don't pay for these people and they get to decide what goes on the screen. We are asking something from them for nothing.

If we have a simple, unified message we might be able to get some pull. I'll cover this in another post.
 
Tuck, I see what you're saying, but it's worth noting that your first post here is a post with criticism.

You became concerned enough to comment when you thought you had a necessary criticism to offer.

Similarly, many people who send emails to a news organization, particularly Fox, are going to be motivated by a desire to criticize. I'd be very, very surprised if most of the emails received by Fox on all subjects weren't critical, particularly with MediaMatters aggregating complaints.

I also would say that you're seeing the natural progression of a movement composed largely of outsiders. People became enthusiastic about the Paul campaign because Paul's views aren't part of the dominant political narrative in the MSM and because it is, quite frankly, a quasi-insurgency. In the first flush of getting excited about such a campaign, people have a lot of positive energy. After a few weeks of seeing the shabby treatment Paul receives from the media and the party, it's natural that some of that energy has been replaced by frustration.

If you think it's bad now, give it six more months. I think the media will demonstrate that it will refuse to cover Paul even if he shows up in Washington with 500,000 supporters, space aliens with the cure for cancer, and Jesus himself. There's a lot of people with a lot of naive enthusiasm who are going to be quite embittered by the process of this campaign, and those people are going to complain. A lot.
 
It is all a matter of the way you write the email, really, and what purpose is to be achieved. When an obvious hatchet job has been committed, you write a letter like this, as posted by Roxic27:

he issue is not that RP is finishing at the bottom of the polls -- which is in itself debatable-- the issue is that there are invited candidates who were able to appear at the forum who do not have the fundraising, the polling, the grassroots support, or the TAX RECORD that RP has.

this was a tax forum for iowans but by not inviting the "taxpayers best friend" --http://www.ntu.org/main/press_releas...9&org_name=NTU -- The Iowans for tax relief have shown themselves to be a sham.

The decision maker in not inviting RP is Ed Failor. He is an advisor to the McCain campaign.

All of these issues were left out of your article, which only shows that the reporter that wrote this piece and the people who allowed it to get to print have no journalistic integrity.

word of you inability to report news to your readers is disseminating quickly on the internet. Your utter failure will be widely reported.

Similar letters should be sent to Cavuto or Hannity when they intentionally try to discredit RP or others through manipulative techniques.

However, if you are just asking for a guest, it should be simple and polite. First, who are you contacting? Second, what are you trying to accomplish?

If you are the type of person prone to be unable to separate emotion from effectiveness in typed speech, emailing MSM HQ probably isn't a job for you -- at least within the scope of the Ron Paul campaign.
 
Yes, but it is far more likely it is not. On the other board, there were several RP supporters that were suggesting to people to call Failor's house night and day. I saw several people agree. Quite frankly, I was shocked at first. Now, I'm not so shocked. The behavior is still abhorrent. So yes, I do think it likely that there are some that are doing exactly what Tuck described.


Frankly, it doesn't bother me.

Let me ask you all one question: do you think all the phone calls the Senate got were nice and friendly, "requesting" the Senators change their minds on passing Bush's immigration bill? Not hardly ...

It is important for all of these clowns to remember who "pays the bills." It's WE, the PEOPLE, after all . . .
 
If you think it's bad now, give it six more months. I think the media will demonstrate that it will refuse to cover Paul even if he shows up in Washington with 500,000 supporters, space aliens with the cure for cancer, and Jesus himself. There's a lot of people with a lot of naive enthusiasm who are going to be quite embittered by the process of this campaign, and those people are going to complain. A lot.

And well they should!

It's sad, but I think your characterization is apt. Old media is dying and it knows it. All of the people who work for it are scared about losing their gigs - but they'll just have to wake up and compete in the new marketplace.

I, for one, look forward to some really nice vitriol in a few months from the angry boardwarriors and gamernerds. Some of them are really good at the wordsmithing (not me, I'm a from-the-guts kinda guy).
 
It's going to be even harder to become a truly free society if we can't accept the fact that we are all individuals.

Look at it this way:

Liberty is the only thing
you cannot have
unless you are willing
to give it to others.


William Allen White

This maxim applies to our social circles as well.

Ron Paul is a big enough man to accept that individuals have differing opinions. He has stated this time and time again. He also mentions that it's our shared love for freedom that unites us because in a free nation we can all be free to have our differences without aggression being used against us.

I suggest that we stop treating some Ron Paul supporters like they are red headed step children locked in the attic of our political movement, because it's equally their political movement as well!

Let's embrace our differences as proof that Ron Paul's message is powerful mojo. Think about the wide variety of people from so many corners attracted to the message. This is our strength.

Let's not play the same games of political stagemanship of our detractors by attempting to "hide" the scary stuff from the uninitiated. We aren't a cult, so let us not act like one.

Respect the fact that people have to work intellectually to get to where we are on the political spectrum. People have to swim against the current of the mainstream to reach us here where we stand.

And, you know, if they can make that intellectual journey successfully, they're probably going to be able to accept the fact that we are all, each of us, individuals with the God-given right to think for ourselves and hold our opinions without the need for an apology to anyone ever.

If they can't do that, then they probably can't handle being free.

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. ~. Adlai Stevenson
 
Back
Top