NYT article on our man, Ron Paul

...
Here are my views on "conspiracies":

Throughout the history of the world, there have been an untold number of private meetings behind closed doors whereby the contents of the conversations were not divulged and will never be divulged. Numerous events have occurred where there have been questions raised and never answered (the bombing of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, JFK, Vince Foster, 9/11); and since the questions either cannot be answered or people won't talk, then convincing the general populace of alternative theories is often an exercise in futility.

Therefore, stick to the basics of your core ideology, and leave conspiracy discussion to front porch Friday evening private get-togethers.

Hear here!

I'm not questioning the factual basis of your statement. In fact, I know that Bohemian Grove goes on. However, regardless of its validity, such statements turn off the average American.

We MUST distance ourselves from what the majority of peopleview as conspiracy theories. Such discussion does a great disservice to the campaign because people will see us as nuts. We need to only discuss what Dr. Paul has said

We need to focus on Ron Paul's message and get him elected

Hear here!

Does the "Owl" have guards? We would need to find a way to take them out as well. we also have a bobcat and a john deere tractor. If someone has a trailer that would be helpful, as just dragging it down the street may arouse suspiscion.

But, it would make for good TV :D

And did everyone notice "71 yr old great granfather?

They are turning up the heat on the age issue IMHO
 
WASHINGTON, DC—Breaking a 211-year media silence, retired Army Gen. George Washington appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to speak out against many aspects of the way the Iraq war has been waged.

Retired-General.article.jpg

Washington likens Vice President Cheney to controversial British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Stamp Act architect George Greenville.


Washington likens Vice President Cheney to controversial British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Stamp Act architect George Greenville.

Washington, whose appearance marked the first time the military leader and statesman had spoken publicly since his 1796 farewell address in Philadelphia, is the latest in a string of retired generals stepping forward to criticize the Iraq war.

"This entire military venture has been foolhardy and of ill design," said Washington, dressed in his customary breeches and frilly cravat. "The manifold mistakes committed by this president in Iraq carry grave consequences, and he who holds the position of commander in chief has the responsibility to right those wrongs."

Washington noted that while Saddam Hussein was an indefensible tyrant, that alone did not justify a "conflict that seems without design or end."

"The Iraqi people did suffer greatly under unjust rule," Washington said. "But in truth, it is the duty of any people that wishes to be free to fight for its own independence. Had France meddled in our revolution beyond the guidance and material assistance they provided, I should think similar unrest would have darkened our nation's earliest hours."

Retired-General-Jump.article.jpg

Washington made the cable news rounds, telling Wolf Blitzer that the war was a "tragic mistake for our nation."


Washington made the cable news rounds, telling Wolf Blitzer that the war was a "tragic mistake for our nation."

The Virginia-born Revolutionary War veteran and national-capital namesake also expressed his worry over the state of the American militia, the unchecked powers of the executive branch, and the lack of a congressional declaration of war.

"The very genius of the American presidency is that it is an office held by an elected representative of the people, not by a monarch who can rule by fiat and enact policy at will," Washington said.

The retired general asserted that many of the current problems in Iraq could easily have been predicted by wiser civilian leadership.

"I can say from personal experience that even a malnourished force with feet clad in rags should not be underestimated, even by a far superior power," added Washington, who has disavowed further comparison between the Iraqi insurgency and the American colonists. "There is nothing a committed fighting force cannot accomplish if bolstered by the strength of its convictions."

Washington's critical comments echo those of other retired generals, including Maj. Gen. John Batiste and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who attacked Bush's Iraq policy in a series of television ads run by political action committee VoteVets.org during the 2006 midterm elections.

"We're very happy that someone of General Washington's stature is speaking out," said Jon Soltz, cofounder and chairman of VoteVets.org. "He has impeccable conservative credentials, extensive foreign policy experience, is a true citizen-soldier with a proven commitment to his country, and, if that's not enough to get Bush to listen, he's the face on the dollar bill."

However, White House response to the former general's criticism was swift and sharp. Spokesman Tony Fratto dismissed Washington as "increasingly irrelevant" and "a relic" who "made some embarrassing gaffes" during his own military career, such as the Continental Army's near destruction in the Battle of Long Island in 1776.

"The general's reckless and irresponsible comments show that he clearly does not understand the realities of 21st-century warfare," Fratto said.

Conservative pundits moved quickly to discredit the decorated general.

"I don't care who you are—or if you cannot tell a lie—it's un-American to question the president in a time of war," Sean Hannity said on his radio program Monday. "Plus, I find it very interesting that a man who owned slaves and sold hemp thinks he's entitled to give our Commander in Chief lessons on how to run a war."

Toward the end of his Meet the Press interview, Washington expressed fears for the future of Iraq, Middle East policy, and America itself.

"These convoluted foreign adventures were not what I envisaged for my young nation," Washington said. "Certainly the citizens of the republic deserve better than this. Had I but known this was the fated course of my country, I might not have found the strength to liberate Her from the mantle of King George."

-source
 
May I summarize this article...

Dr. Ron Paul... He is popular... BECAUSE ALL THE NUTS RALLYING AROUND HIM...

His ideas are bold... but discounted years ago...

He hates Israel... Well he hates ALL country's...

Oh.. and Don't worry America... He won't be president... cause NOW we have told ya what he is!!..

DR. Ron Paul... You want to hear truth... listen..
DR. Ron Paul... You want to hear LOGIC... listen..
DR. Ron Paul... You want to hear CONSISTENCY.... listen..
DR. Ron Paul... You want IDEAS that have PROVEN THE TEST OF TIME??... Listen
DR. Ron Paul... You want a new moral and right direction for the country?? .. VOTE FOR HIM

Peace
Atv
 
May I summarize this article...

Dr. Ron Paul... He is popular... BECAUSE ALL THE NUTS RALLYING AROUND HIM...

His ideas are bold... but discounted years ago...

He hates Israel... Well he hates ALL country's...

Oh.. and Don't worry America... He won't be president... cause NOW we have told ya what he is!!..

DR. Ron Paul... You want to hear truth... listen..
DR. Ron Paul... You want to hear LOGIC... listen..
DR. Ron Paul... You want to hear CONSISTENCY.... listen..
DR. Ron Paul... You want IDEAS that have PROVEN THE TEST OF TIME??... Listen
DR. Ron Paul... You want a new moral and right direction for the country?? .. VOTE FOR HIM

Peace
Atv


I disagree, the article is good because it's balanced. I don't expect advocacy from a journalist, and this writer covered a lot of ground. Even the Dondero quote isn't a negative in my mind.

I can't look at the world through the eyes of ignorance, I can't help what lazy people may think about Ron Paul if they don't choose to look into things further.
 
this article has so many "hidden" hit pieces its not even funny

one example

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.

not put into context whatsoever.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

its so long for a reason so they say enough stuff we agree with in it so we say its fair and not attack them but in the end there's enough stuff that will build over the course of reading for most american's hearing about him the first time to call him a old "kook." With the conclusion of the frindge group stuff for the knockout punch. Very well devised article my the MSM.
 
I disagree, the article is good because it's balanced. I don't expect advocacy from a journalist, and this writer covered a lot of ground. Even the Dondero quote isn't a negative in my mind.

I can't look at the world through the eyes of ignorance, I can't help what lazy people may think about Ron Paul if they don't choose to look into things further.


Do you think an article on Mitt Romney, would go on about his change of positions about his IN-consistency? about his mormonism and then about THEIR wierd beliefs to include those on Blacks pre-1964 when I would add.. Romney was a member too??? Select votes by him to hi-lite making him look COLD.. or like he doesnn't like particular groups? maybe convolute his message by bringing up some "odd" positions he has held in the past... or maybe point out the "lack of logic" in his "studying stem cells I decided abortion was wrong" statement??

See I don't.. this article was written with such a casual glance at HIGHLY diffisive issues and SUBJECTS.. like conspiracy.. human sacrifice, etc...
And YOU ARE RIGHT.. all ANYONE has to do is delve a bit... to find the TRUTH.. or HOW DR. PAULS POSITION MIGHT IMPACT THEIRS!!

BUT.. many will never... and will DISCOUNT him because they will use this article and other reports to reinforce thier beliefs that he is a quack...

GEEZE.. Look at the inflammatory paragraph headings within the article.. not to mention quips about the this HIGHLY INTELLIGENT.. and TIME PROVEN RIGHT.... Man

I don't see a lot of rethoric in there about that!
YUP... Lots of hidden HIT PEICE's i here... the JERKS...

Peace & Love
Atv
 
Last edited:
I think it's a great article. Listen, the NYT is spending A LOT of column space in their magazine for this feature. This is a REALLY great opportunity for publicity. I thought the article was very balanced, and showed a great respect for Dr. Paul. Most news outlets DISRESPECT him by ignoring him or discounting him.
 
I think the article had as many positives as negatives.

The people who will vote for Paul are not the kind of people that will blindly accept what they're told. I do not believe an article like this will turn many voters away from Ron Paul who might otherwise have voted for him.

Conclusion: this article will be beneficial to the cause of liberty.
 
If you are pointing people to ron paul for the first time or are new comers to him and don't know him that well I urge you to not use this article as a source.

It will do more harm that good on the overall grand scheme of things
 
The NY Times Mag

Not to come in over the top here, but the NY Times magazine has a reputation for pretty insightful analyses of hot issues with political buzz and interesting social implications. In short, this is a 'story', and their focus on the anti-everything, antiquated libertarian who's retro hip all of the sudden is exactly what they were trying to get across. That's what they do. If you want a slow, reasoned approach to his policy, I'd try a different magazine. And yes, I think the NYT would similarly tear some holes in Romney (while also highlighting his strengths); they'd discuss the 'mormon thing', the flip-flopping, the over-polish, etc. Besides, even the "hidden hit pieces" have a function, because they put them out there. The majority of candidate smear is shock and then repetition. Once it's out there people can counter it without it coming across as too much CYA. I think it looks like a decent article and about what the campaign could expect at this point; remember, the media is still learning about RP and his ideas too. In any case, I doubt this will be the last article the NY Times mag writes about him.
 
After reading the article I'd certainly rather have the article out there in its current form than no article at all. Say 50,000 people read the article and 10-20% of them buy into the campaign, that's a big win. And these are the types of people who are news junkies and have other well-educated friends to talk to. And like others have said, it gets this stuff in print, so if it comes out later it's old news.
 
I don't think your friend's crane would be big enough

If you look at the owl, it weighs more than any normal crane could pick up.
 
This article will be good for the campaign. It is all about name recognition at this point. The article is a little quirky, but that's what the Times Magazine is all about. About as fair as you are going to get out of the MSM. I'm a fan!
 
Yeah, people complain that Paul gets zero coverage in the MSM, then when he does get some, they complain that it's not simply fawning admiration.

Does anyone really expect the NYT to publish a glowing endorsement of Ron Paul? If you do, get your head examined.

In the meantime, I'm happy to see this article and I appreciate it for what it is: an acknowledgment by the NYT that Ron Paul matters.
 
I think a lot of NYT readers will see through the "he's against free trade because he doesn't approve of WTO or NAFTA" bit...I've seen a lot of exposure in the "liberal" circles in NY about the evils of WTO/NAFTA. I think once they notice that they'll question the bias involved in the other papercuts.

At the very least, it makes him sound like an interesting/entertaining character who they may want to look up. And of course, as everyone else says, exposure is everything at this point.
 
Yeah, people complain that Paul gets zero coverage in the MSM, then when he does get some, they complain that it's not simply fawning admiration.

Does anyone really expect the NYT to publish a glowing endorsement of Ron Paul? If you do, get your head examined.

In the meantime, I'm happy to see this article and I appreciate it for what it is: an acknowledgment by the NYT that Ron Paul matters.

QFT

and just because Spirit of '76 is a Journo doesn't mean he's not reliable! ;)
 
Back
Top