NYT article on our man, Ron Paul

Ron Paul's presidency will take away money and power from the obscenely rich and powerful. If you even slightly think they will print a completely nice and friendly article about RP, then you must have missed the "Abolish the FED", "Abolish the IRS", "No war, no etc..." speeches.

Enjoy the fact his name is out there, then prove the NYT wrong. And for the love of God, don't talk to reporters about the Bohemian Grove.
 
It's a huge crane...big enough to build a 12 story building... It could pick up that stupid owl...but we need to put it on something....like a trailer. hmmm! why don't we just set the oak grove on fire?
 
BIG_J said:
It's a huge crane...big enough to build a 12 story building... It could pick up that stupid owl...but we need to put it on something....like a trailer. hmmm! why don't we just set the oak grove on fire?
Click to expand...

FREAKS!
 
Kuldebar said:
I agree. And I think the negative comments being brought up about the nature of other Ron Paul's supporters speak more about the people making it an issue than it does about Ron Paul's message.

This bears repeating:

I find it ironic that people want to assert control over the message of freedom.

Control freaks are exactly the reason why we lose our freedoms.

It requires some bravery and tolerance to accept that people will approach things differently and do things in ways that you or I may not always approve of...

A spontaneous and non-centralized revolution against the status quo is happening here, let's end the attacks on the diversity of our movement.

The only thing we need to have in common is the value of liberty and freedom.

I don't care if you believe in green little men from Mars or practice poor calligraphy, I will embrace you as a brother and sister of liberty.

If we, as a movement, can't accept and revel in our diversity; we may not have the strength and intestinal fortitude to be free.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your post. Unite for Individual Liberty!
 
I think many of you guys are pretty misguided in your hatred for this article. The largest paper in the country has just written a large article about our candidate. It is most definitely not a hit piece and covers more ground than any article than any article I can remember. The fact that the article wasn't written by a sycophantic supporter is part of its allure. The author covers all kinds of things, both good and bad, and gives a great deal of perspective into the heart of Ron Paul. Ron Paul comes out looking slightly eccentric, but very principled and very charismatic. This article taught me many things that I had never heard before, particularly about Ron Paul's political history. It went into a great deal of detail. Have you who disliked this article forgotten what Ron Paul's greatest challenge is, name recognition? If you guys fire up the hatemail brigade on this author, you will be sending a clear message to journalists that anything other than sycophantic pro Ron Paul articles will result in a flooded inbox full of nastygrams. You will discourage big coverage like this and you will be smothering the campaign with a pillow. Try rereading the article with a less critical eye. It really is mostly a thing of beauty.
 
Yeah, well what would your opinion be of Ron Paul if you had never heard of him and never did hear of him? NAME RECOGNITION. Nothing is more important right now. Also, can you name any other major mainstream media source that helps debunk the newsletter thing? This article is fantastic.
 
amen, brother

kylejack said:
I think many of you guys are pretty misguided in your hatred for this article. The largest paper in the country has just written a large article about our candidate. It is most definitely not a hit piece and covers more ground than any article than any article I can remember. The fact that the article wasn't written by a sycophantic supporter is part of its allure. The author covers all kinds of things, both good and bad, and gives a great deal of perspective into the heart of Ron Paul. Ron Paul comes out looking slightly eccentric, but very principled and very charismatic. This article taught me many things that I had never heard before, particularly about Ron Paul's political history. It went into a great deal of detail. Have you who disliked this article forgotten what Ron Paul's greatest challenge is, name recognition? If you guys fire up the hatemail brigade on this author, you will be sending a clear message to journalists that anything other than sycophantic pro Ron Paul articles will result in a flooded inbox full of nastygrams. You will discourage big coverage like this and you will be smothering the campaign with a pillow. Try rereading the article with a less critical eye. It really is mostly a thing of beauty.
Click to expand...

ITA. You guys have to remember the authors were being as broad as possible - they mentioned the strict liberaterian/constitutionalist side of things, and the conspiracy theorist side of things. the beauty of ron paul's campaign is that it can bring two seemingly totally differing sides together for one cause. thats what i think is the ultimate message of the article - and i see no way how that is a bad thing.

In any event, since we can't even come to a consensus as to whether this is a friendly article or not, then i think that alone means we should refrain from trashing the NYT. we need to remember we are ultimately supporting the message of Dr. Paul and freedom - not which individual portion of Ron Paul supporters that we happen to align ourselves with the most.
 
kylejack said:
Try rereading the article with a less critical eye. It really is mostly a thing of beauty.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. I just reread the article and I now feel much better about it. It is a balanced article and thankfully the good stuff is front-loaded. The first half of the article is VERY complimentary. I still don't see point of balancing the good with portraits of various "nut jubs", or showing some of RP's votes for their shock value (while providing no context). In any case, the NYT magazine is a BIG DEAL. I think this is definitely a positive.
 
It is fruitless to debate the positives or negatives about this or that article. This is the article that is going to run and there's no way that is going to change... Sunday's NYT Magazine is already printed.

The task now is to firmly but politely respond to those parts of the article that are unfavorable, without even bringing up that which in unfavorable. In other words, if you start your letter to the NYT editor, "Ron Paul's supporter's are not a bunch of Alex Jones-worshipping nut-jobs", it will reinforce the idea in the readers' mind that they in fact are. Better to start off the letter, "Ron Paul's campaign is gaining momentum because his demographic is the majority of Americans: average people who want to restore peace and prosperity, rights and property, civility and common sense."
 
Kuldebar said:
I see the article more favorably, but agree with most of your points.

I think a part of the problem is that most journalists are used to single issue candidate or the usual stances of main stream candidates. Ron Paul represents a "perfect storm" of ideas so huge and threatening to the status quo that many people simply choose not to "see" the whole thing and try to describe one small portion of the movement.

But, nothing surprising here. For decades well intentioned people have been chopping at the tentacles of the beast and never attempted to go to the heart of the problem.

Like so many blind men trying to figure out what an elephant is by fumbling touch, we have many theories, all equally wrong.

Until now. Now, more and more people are waking up to the nature of the animal in their midst.

I can "forgive" journalistic astigmatism. The message will shine through to the minds ready to see the truth.
Click to expand...

Kudelbar, I completely agree with this. Your description distills the murky mash of the current situation down to its essence.

No matter how much we talk, no matter what we do, a person will not listen until he/she is ready to hear. If one good thing can be said for these past 6 destructive years under Bush, it is that more people are finally willing to listen.
 
As they say, any press is good press. I think the author was right when he said our campaign is fueled by those with common beliefs and anger. To an extent, that anger is aimed at people discrediting Ron Paul, saying that he doesn't have a chance to win the Presidency. When the author wrote that Ron Paul won't win, it reminded me of Ed Failor denying Ron Paul into the Iowa Presidential Candidates Forum. The more people try to deny Ron Paul his chance, and the more people tell him he can't win, the more steam his campaign gets. It all comes back to Gandhi's quote:

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.

Now that the NY Times is talking about Ron Paul, we're certainly past step 1. We're now seeing a mixture of steps 2 and 3. We, as a group, need to focus very intently on making step 4 happen. Door to door campaigning and convincing likely primary voters is the key. Get a voter registration list from your state's division of elections, and visit and/or call the people who have voted in past primaries. Now is the time to make a change! Let's do it!
 
Wise Words

kylejack said:
I think many of you guys are pretty misguided in your hatred for this article. The largest paper in the country has just written a large article about our candidate. It is most definitely not a hit piece and covers more ground than any article than any article I can remember. The fact that the article wasn't written by a sycophantic supporter is part of its allure. The author covers all kinds of things, both good and bad, and gives a great deal of perspective into the heart of Ron Paul. Ron Paul comes out looking slightly eccentric, but very principled and very charismatic. This article taught me many things that I had never heard before, particularly about Ron Paul's political history. It went into a great deal of detail. Have you who disliked this article forgotten what Ron Paul's greatest challenge is, name recognition? If you guys fire up the hatemail brigade on this author, you will be sending a clear message to journalists that anything other than sycophantic pro Ron Paul articles will result in a flooded inbox full of nastygrams. You will discourage big coverage like this and you will be smothering the campaign with a pillow. Try rereading the article with a less critical eye. It really is mostly a thing of beauty.
Click to expand...

the only bad press is no press at all!
we can definitely take it and run with it and use it to educate more people / get ready for the floodgates - they are about to open!!!

ps Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States of America!
 
Last edited:
Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

That article is a hit piece. Its just an extremely clever hit piece. It uses alot of true
details but it omits certain true details or explanations or just even basic honest journalistic impartiality in critical places, to leave negative impressions. The sum of these negative impressions overcome the sum of any positive impressionss, leaving a net negative sum.

The MSM have learned that unsophisticated attacks will backfire, rather than continuing on the same course, they are upping the level of sophistication. Be on the lookout for articles that seem plausible yet leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Here are some things from the NYT article worth considering:

-------------
Example 0:
"Thin to the point of gauntness, polite to the point of daintiness"

Allusion to negative physical appearance and character weakness.

-------------
Example 1:
"In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to "honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1)."

No mention of wanting to give his own money and asking congress to do the same, no mention of the reasons why he doesn't want US to meddle in other countries internal politics (such as advice of the founding fathers and the constitution).

-------------
Example 2:
" “GQ wants to profile you on Thursday,” Benton continues. “I think it’s worth doing.”

“GTU?” the candidate replies.

“GQ. It’s a men’s magazine.”

“Don’t know much about that,” Paul says. "

Nice way of painting him out of touch, even though he is more in touch with the people than the rest.

------------
Example 3:
"According to Dondero, “When 9/11 happened, he just completely changed. One of the first things he said was not how awful the tragedy was . . . it was, ‘Now we’re gonna get big government.’ ” "

Dondero is a disgruntled former employee, you just going to take his word for it? In any case, this makes him look like he doesnt care about US Citizens

------------
Example 4:

"In today’s Washington, Paul’s combination of radical libertarianism and conservatism is unusual."

What is so radical about it? Paints a negative picture on the reader's mind.

-----------
Example 5:

"Paul admires Robert Taft, the isolationist Ohio senator known during the Truman administration as Mr. Republican, who tried to rally Republicans against United States participation in NATO."

Taft was not an isolationist. He supported the Truman Doctrine for example. In any case why were the reasons for him pulling out of NATO not listed? Taft opposed NATO as a provocative and expensive act that would stimulate the arms race and eventually force the United States to send troops to Europe.

-----------
Example 6:
"In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.”"

Dirt digging from a long long time ago. Ron Paul said he didnt write these things.

------------
Example 7:
"Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication."

More negative publicity.

--------------
Example 8:
"To hang around with his impressively large crowd of supporters before and after the CNN debate in Manchester, N.H., in June, was to be showered with privately printed newsletters full of exclamation points and capital letters, scribbled-down U.R.L.’s for Web sites about the Free State Project, which aims to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian enclave, and copies of the cult DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism.”"

Nice way of disregarding information by claiming: exclamation points, capital letters, urls, enclave, cult etc..

-------------
Example 9:
" Victor Carey, a 45-year-old, muscular, mustachioed self-described “patriot” who wears a black baseball cap with a skull and crossbones on it, drove up from Sykesville, Md., to show his support for Paul. He laid out some of his concerns. “The people who own the Federal Reserve own the oil companies, they own the mass media, they own the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, they’re part of the Bilderbergers, and unfortunately their spiritual practices are very wicked and diabolical as well,” Carey said. “They go to a place out in California known as the Bohemian Grove, and there’s been footage obtained by infiltration of what their practices are. And they do mock human sacrifices to an owl-god called Moloch. This is true. Go research it yourself.”

What does all that have to do with Ron Paul or his message?


------------
Example 10:
"Guess what! The Spanish company building the highway — they’re gonna get the tolls. Giuliani’s law firm represents that Spanish company. Giuliani’s been anointed a knight by the Queen. Guess what! Read the Constitution. That’s not allowed!” "

Dismissal of valid information by appending something seemingly frivolous

-------------
Example 11:
"Paul is not a conspiracy theorist, but he has a tendency to talk in that idiom."

Either he is or he isnt. The writer wants to imply he is without saying it.

--------------
Example 12:
" Since then it has lain dormant but not dead — waiting, like so many other old right-wing groups, for someone or something to kiss it back to life. UROC endorsed Paul at its spring convention. "

Painting supporters as few and weak

--------------
Example 13:

"That night, Ruffley spoke about her past with the John Birch Society and asked how many in the room were members (quite a few, as it turned out). She referred to the California senator Dianne Feinstein as “Fine-Swine,” and got quickly to Israel, raising the Israeli attack on the American Naval signals ship Liberty during the Six-Day War. Some people were pleased. Others walked out. Others sent angry e-mails that night. Several said they would not return. The head of the Pasadena Meetup group, Bill Dumas, sent a desperate letter to Paul headquarters asking for guidance: "

Guild by association rubbish

-----------
Example 14:

"But what is “Ron’s message”? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats"

Dismiss Ron's message as unimportant, focus on supporters.

------------
Example 15:

"The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers — and anger — are of a considerable magnitude."

Destroy supporters by saying they have to be either anti war left or antigovernment right. There are many ppl behind Ron Paul from all over the political spectrum, because his message unites all people. However, this hack makes it look like anarchists and hippies it also make them all look angry, even though most supporters are happy to have found a good honest candidate.

---------------
Example 16:
"Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States."

And you didnt think the writer had an agenda? WAKE THE HELL UP



-----------
To summarise: The writer is a pathetic hack, with an agenda and a clever spin.

Don't fall into the new traps MSM puts out.

If you endorse this article you are not helping Ron Paul, for the article is written in a such a way as to be passable as a fair article with plentiful information and yet it is a hit piece plain and simple.

Personally Mr Caldwell, you may think you will get a nice little bone thrown your way after doing a WOOF WOOF and a ROLL OVER for your masters.
Ultimately though, you are stabbing the american people in the back with your political subversion of RPs campaign. Hope you are proud of yourself.

PS. You are not even that sophisticated of a hit piece writer. Although, it is better than before, it is still completely transparent.
 
NYT Article Spin - Negative or Positive?

It is what it is and it has been published! The good news is that many who never heard of Ron Paul now know who he is and that he is running for president. You may choose to detail the faults of the article or you may choose to use it to educate the people who now come to us or our various web sites for more information.

You may even be able to draw in the press to pick up more coverage in the explanation process if you handle it properly. The MSM perceives itself to be fair and balanced even when to us it is clearly not. Our approach should be to constantly politely hold up the standard of truth, the facts on the record in print and in the Congressional voting records.

Ron Paul will continue to deliver that message to the people and the press will continue to report what they see and hear from him and from us. Let us give them a positive tone to offset the negatives they are getting from the power brokers bent on undermining our efforts. The Love inside the RevoLution can come across and disarm them if each one of us will learn to do what Ron Paul does all the time - smile and tell the truth and stand for righteousness and fairness and freedom for all.
 
A friend and former housemate of mine (yes, he's Jewish) just spammed this out to his family and friends:

big profile on ron paul in the magazine thought I would pull this quote out for you:

Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel's. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html
 
The New York Times is just another piece of trash rag. They are bought and paid for as much as other publications.


..and unfortunately this stuff does hurt our guy.

One of my mothers co-workers who said she looked into Ron Paul and said she didn't like him because he is "For the Browns" , so an example of how bullshit smear articles do sway people.

Thank god for the Internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
567
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Remember the great Justin Raimondo, critic of the warfare-welfare state
Replies
0
Views
34
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
What Was Said - And Wasn't Said - In Trump's TV Speech
Replies
0
Views
38
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Why Ron Paul Is the Only Politician World Leaders Should Emulate
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
I
Pragmatic thoughts about campaigning for Massie
Replies
0
Views
20
Invisible Man
I
Back
Top