Ron Paul supporters: Do NOT read this. Please!

READERS' WARNING: Supporters of Ron Paul should not read this item. Perusing the following paragraphs may cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disappointment and renewed anger at political polls, the mainstream media, all institutions holding financial power and anyone not terribly concerned about that mysterious planned highway across Texas that somehow threatens national security.

O.K., now that they're gone to their chatrooms or one of their impressive 1,200 meet-up groups, for the rest of you some background: The Ron Paul Conspiracy has received more news coverage and made quite an impression online in recent months for its followers' persistence, pervasiveness and, to put it politely, outspokenness in favor of their Republican candidate, the 72-year-old, 10-term Texas congressman with the libertarian ideals and the numerous books. He's even been on the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" and this Sunday is scheduled for an hour-long grilling by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press."

With fundraising persistence, dedication to "Dr. Paul" and admirable political energy in recent days their growing numbers made a huge name for themselves by raising more than $6 million online (more than $18 million for the quarter, they say), a new one-day political record.

Yet these Paulites have always dismissed polls, hated them, even despised them. They have many reasons besides the fact that no polls have given Paul much chance of winning anything. Polls, some suggest, are fictitious summaries of the mainstream media designed to suppress the Ron Paul Revolution. Polls are fake because no Paulite can remember ever being phoned for a survey. Many Paul supporters are new to the political process, so not on voter rolls to be polled. And they mostly use cellphones, not landlines. So they'd be somehow under-represented.

They maintained this stand even when Ron Paul's polling numbers in New Hampshire, for instance, increased geometrically from 2% to 4% to 8%, twice the support of better-known Fred Thompson.

Now, here's the news that would drive Paul supporters berserk if any had kept reading down to here, which they haven't: Ron Paul's polling numbers are now plummeting. Yup, going down, down. Once, he got the money to afford TV advertising in the Granite State, his support as measured by these no-doubt fraudulent polls began crumbling.

The new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll out today shows Paul's support falling from its high of 8% in early November to 7% at the start of December and 5% last weekend, when he had his big fundraising success. (The phone survey of 411 random, likely Republican primary voters was between Dec. 13 and 17.)

Of course, if Paul supporters believed in polls, they would point out that....

with a margin of error of +/- 5%, Paul could theoretically be at 10%. That also means, naturally, he could be at 0% too.

Belief in Paul's ability to handle terrorism held steady at 3%, to handle the economy fell from 7% to 3% and to handle taxes from 9% to 5%. His support for handling illegal immigration was steady at 4%, to handle abortion up from 4% to 5% and his ability to address the Iraq war (he's the only GOP candidate who favors withdrawal) was steady at 5%.

Now, in case anyone cares about the non-Paul candidates who have a chance of winning, Mitt Romney's percentage jumped from 32% to 34% from the beginning to middle of December, with the endorsement of the Manchester Union-Leader and Boston Globe John McCain increased from 19% to 22%, Rudy Giuliani fell from 19% to 16% and Mike Huckabee went from 9% to 10%.

Thompson and Tom Tancredo, who will announce the end of his candidacy Thursday, according to an Associated Press report tonight, held steady at 1% support while California's Congressman Duncan Hunter went from 0% to 1%.

On the poll's Democratic side, 469 likely primary voters produced a margin of error of 5%. After some troubled weeks when her support faded from a high of 43% in September to 31% at the start of December, Hillary Clinton's numbers surged back to 38%, while Barack Obama's slipped somewhat from 30% to 26% and John Edwards from 16% to 14%.

Bill Richardson went from 7% to 8%, Dennis Kucinich from 3% to 2%, Joe Biden from 1% to 2% and Chris Dodd from 1% to 0%.

If they were still reading down to here which, of course, they're not because they don't believe in polls, Paul supporters would say that none of this matters because only real votes count come Jan. 8. And, you know what, on that they would be 100% right.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Idaho]

Elections, those are polls aren't they?
Of course they are unscientific polls- kind of like strawpolls.
People actually must motivate themselves to go vote, as they are voluntary.
So if I were a candidate, I would want to swarm that poll with a bunch of motivate people- tilt the count unfairly in my favor.
It would make quite an impression, make my campaign appear to have popular backing. Most importantly it would be declared a win by landslide in the mainstream press the next day.

[Darren D.]

Hi Andrew,

Please point out where my logic is flawed.

The pollsters are polling registered Republicans who are likely to vote in the primaries....correct?

The way they get this list of potential voters is through the state GOP list of Republicans who voted in the last primary or caucus in that state...correct?

In 2004, incumbent President George Bush ran unopposed...correct?

Turn out for primaries and caucuses on the Republican side amounted to about 6% of registered Republicans...correct?

So pollsters are calling a narrow group of Republicans who are hard core enough Bush fans to go vote for him in a primary when he is running unopposed...correct?

94% of registered republicans are never polled...correct?

Ron Paul is receiving 4x the money ($18.5 mil vs. $4.5 mil) than the supposed current front runner Mike Huckabee...correct?

Ron Paul gatherings draw 5x as many supporters than any of the other candidates...correct?

Is it possible that a lot of the 94% of registered Republicans that did not vote in the primaries last time might vote for Dr. Paul?

Is it probable that the 6% of hard core Bush primary voters who support the war, would not support Dr. Paul?

Could this be the reason that the ONLY indicator that is not showing Dr. Paul as the favorite are polls where his supporters are not allowed to participate?

Let's do a Ben Franklin Spread Sheet:

Indicators proving Ron Paul is winning:
- # 1 in Straw Polls winning 25 out of 48
- # 1 in On-line Polls usually winning with more than 50%
- # 1 in campaign signs in front of houses
- # 1 in supporters showing up to events
- # 1 in Meet-up groups
- # 1 on Facebook
- # 1 googled term "Ron Paul"
- # 1 on YouTube
- # 1 Internationally with meetup groups and websites in 20+ countries

Indicators showing Ron Paul is losing
- # 6 in narrow telephone polling of previous cylce primary voters

Ben Franklin would say Dr. Paul is winning.

Where is my logic wrong?

(Who could argue with your logic? But when I've been polled, they've asked me to identify my party myself and whether I was certain, likely or unlikely to vote.)

[xtrabiggg]

Andrew. You Plagiarized that headline partially from an old 'Abdominizer' Advertisement. But I'll forgive you for that. What is not unforgiveable is the miopic obsession that you and most reporters seem to have with polling and poll numbers. I worked in communications for years and used poll numbers, surveys and other data to make million-dollar decisions regarding media buying, ad placement and strength of message within specific demographic groups.

I found that over the years, the data was getting less and less accurate, as the companies I relied on failed to keep up with technological advances and demographic trends. Land-line telephone polls are among the worst offenders in this regard. The pollsters seem to rely on a methodology that still clings to 20th-century ideas about demographics and sampling groups. In particular, regarding Presidential Politics, with the advances in communications, both interpersonal and mass media (including internet) the choices of media and equipment and sources for information have become so vast and decentralized that any poll relying on such a small sample as most 'scientific' polls (200-1000 people) will inherently contain a much wider margin of error than the pollsters are willing to admit (generally +/- 5%).

In addition, the polls increasingly seem to be unable to shield themselves from self-bias, as their bread and butter comes from major media corporations and large political groups that 'expect' certain results. Digging into the metrics of the polls and the questions actually asked, this becomes more obvious. The Ron Paul campaign has complained about being excluded from even being included in some polls (other than in the 'other' category). It has also been pointed out how 'compound' or 'bundled' national polls don't just rely on raw data, but apply 'formulae' to add or subtract points based on performance in previous polls- a clear violation of the statistical model which says you should NOT manipulate the data using sources outside of the original data set.

Lastly, the sampling group, in particular regarding Ron paul's numbers, seems to be biased from the outset, yet this fact is hidden by the misleading use of the term. 'Likely Republican Primary Voters' for the sample group. This is a vague description of what specifically is (according to the surveys' own disclosure data) voters who voted in the last Republican Primary. Taken on the face of it, you are relying on a sample of people based on a set of data that is FOUR YEARS OLD!. In addition, this sample does not accurately reflect the dynamics of the present set of 'likely voters', as this year's electorate is much more fluid than in many, many years. In addition, four years ago in the Republican primary, voters had only one choice in an uncontested primary- the Incumbent president. All statistics show that a large number of voters do not vote in a primary election when there is no challenger. Therefore, your sampling pool for this election consists primarily of ardent supporters of President Bush who voted for him in 2004. Is that an accurate representation of the fluid and growing pool of voters who are likely to vote in the 2008 primary? There is no way you can logically or truthfully say that is so.

One final note. in the last three presidential elections, the polls were increasingly divergent with the actual voter tallies, with the networks scrambling to cover their butts as their 'projections' from shortly before the election were wa-a-a-a-y off. DO you really want to continue to rely so much on what is essentially 20th-century technology and metrics in measureing a 21st century election?

xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++++++++=

(Partial plagiarizing? Is that like being sort of pregnant?)

[James Bowery]

Polls are fake because no Paulite can remember ever being phoned for a survey.

Is that why?

Gee, and I thought it was because Old Media reports results of polls that measure mainly what Old Media reports -- your know -- sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[James Bowery]

And now for the actual New Hampshire poll numbers for Ron Paul averaged across all polling organizations by usaelectionpolls.com:

July 1.3
August 3.0
September 3.7
October 4.8
November 6.3
December 6.6

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/candidates/Ron-Paul.html

Not to disabuse you of your lies. Its always comforting to see the Old Media buying its own material.

[John]

Andrew,

I think I speak for the majority of Ron Paul fan's when I say I'm not angry with specific 'journalists' such as you, for writing bits critical of Ron Paul (as long as they're reasonably fair)
What I do take issue with is the notion that polling data is the single factor in determining the simple mention of a candidate. With the level of support Paul's campaign does have, and the money his supporters have raised, would it hurt to mention him along with Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Huck. It's just four more letters: P-A-U-L. That's it; that's all we ask. Throw him in mix. It's not that Paul deserves 'attention,' so much as respect. Media don't have to single him out and do stories, just throw him in the mix. That's what we want. To see our guy respected. Especially when, with 8% in Iowa and 7% in NH (plus unregistered, registered Dem., formerly apathetic and disheartened R's) Paul's looking very good. Just drop his name in there once and awhile.

Is that too much?

[Troy]

The author of this article appears to be suggesting that people should vote based on what the LA Times says the popular thing is.

It's quite common in America for people to blindly follow the "popular" thing since they're constantly told what to think by the mainstream news.

Another dumb smear attempt. They're forgetting that us Ron Paul supporters will be at the Primaries/Caucuses to put the only candidate that will actually follow their oath of office into the Presidency:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

(Thanks for reading, Troy. I cannot find in here anything that says polls order or require people to vote any way at all. They are a snapshot in time of what those 400 people say. That's all. Shouldn't threaten you with your thousands of peers and millions of dollars. So relax a little, save your energy for the canvassing.)

[dusty]

Paul can't lose supporters. Once you go Paul you never go back.

[John Armstrong]

Andy,

I like your columns about Ron Paul. They provide humor. I wonder if the reason some of my fellow Paultards take things so seriously is because our candidate does. Just a thought.

[Scott Stalker]

So, actually you're saying I should believe the polls over the voice of my conscience? Or how about the voices of the American people who aren't polled? Don't They Have A Voice? My voice is on streets. Please poll me thnx. I am voting for Ron Paul's message. He will tell you what that message is. It's all over the net too if you aren't aware already.

[Daniel]

I'm an ardent Ron Paul supporter and I love you to pieces for blogging about him.

Sincerely!

I feel it's a fair trade, you talk about a very important candidate often and get his name out there...and you get a boost to web traffic (I'm assuming on that one...)

Besides, I'm willing to give you 10 to 1 on a dollar that you change your mind about Ron Paul before the elections are over.

One couldn't possibly be exposed to so much truth and not get it. Thank you again for helping the cause!

The rest of you get to www.LettersForFreedom.com and help keep the activism alive! (sorry for the plug, but it's a pro-Ron Paul thing...if you'll be kind enough to include it, I'd much appreciate it!)

www.LettersForFreedom.com - Pass it on!

[Pablo Escobar]

Hey guys, chill out, this is a journalist who wrote this piece. Most journalists aren't intelligent enough to comprehend the ins and outs of monetary policy, foreign policy, let alone the statistical ins and outs of polling. That's why they report the news, while others create it.

Getting mad at the author of this post for judging Paul's credibility on the issues via a popularity contest is a waste of time. Journalists think that just because the majority of Americans haven't understood the reasoning behind Paul's ideas (and prefer personality over substance), the ideas themselves are wrong.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

[Micah]

Although very few of the big Media are giving fair coverage of dr. Paul - I've noticed a lot of these small posts which leads me to believe that papers like LA Times know their viewers want to learn about Ron Paul because they get tons of traffic when they do so they want the benefits of increased traffic without giving real attention to the grassroots appointed front-runner.

by the way - that 5% margin is way off because more than ever the pollsters really don't know who the likely primary voters are. People like me have never voted in a primary and people like me were independents last election cycle.

[Koh Choon Lin]

It is pretty incredible to know Ron Paul numbers are actually falling?

[John Crandell]

Kool Aid drinking, propeller head brainiacs are endemic to both political parties. They'll always go down with the ship, their hands between the buttons of their shirts and their oh so intelligent heads held high.

Kucinich and Paul couldn't lead their way out of a paper sack!

All you propeller heads know nothing about command and leadership.
NOTHING! An election for president is first and foremost about
a candidate's ability for leadership. There are only two individuals
on the stage that I feel possess leadership ability adequate to the
coming environmental hurdles: Edwards and McCain. Judging his
values and policy objectives, I think that the latter is a jerk.
As a Vietnam veteran I feel he is a jackass. Yes, he dropped bombs
and sufferred his imprisonment. He's never shown any comprehension
of the reality that was Vietnam and our involvement there.

We will need a modern Henry of Agincourt in the years ahead and
only one candidate has shown the potential to rise to such a role.
I feel that person is John Edwards.

[Mick Russom]

How can he lead the polls if he isnt an option Yellow journalism No verification of printed facts you take the propaganda of the military industrial complex and eructate it forth Lies liar you are owned by your advertisers and the complex, they tell you to print the lies, and the military industrial complex and the other thieving oligarchs who are above the law laugh and the Americans all lose liberty to pay for these fat cat pricks to live a opulent undeserved life You should read Orwell's 1984. 5 times and let it sink in. You are a part of the machine that destroys liberty Thomas Nast would draw you as one of the crooked wretches in Tammany Hall, liars and cackling thieves and scavengers feasting on the dying law abiding taxpayer The people are not longer going to be lied to and silenced
The day the press should have lost the "press pass' is the day you started advertising, because the credibility of this crud you print is zero.

To those people who are outraged at Mr. Andrew Malcolm's savage insinuations, this letter will be of interest. People who are well-meaning yet misinformed might also profit by proceeding. For the remainder who are indifferent, faint of heart, or content to let Mr. Malcolm distort and trivialize the debate surrounding escapism, I regret that there is little reason to read further. I assume you already know that we must bear this bitter truth coolly and soberly in mind, but I have something more important to tell you. He demands obeisance from his representatives. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Mr. Malcolm forces them to put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon. He is frightened that we might call a spade a spade. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that he is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole.

Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Mr. Malcolm's calumnies, one is promptly condemned as pathological, bad-tempered, high-handed, or whatever epithet Mr. Malcolm deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. He alleges that he's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to perfidious, out-of-touch toughies who want to take away what few freedoms we have left.

I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but Mr. Malcolm wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that I'm not a viperine person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Mr. Malcolm's devotees and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather descend to character assassination and name calling because that's what Mr. Malcolm wants. The basal lie that underlies all of his disruptive, abusive hijinks is that honor counts for nothing. Translation: Mr. Malcolm's faith in barbarism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views but you should nevertheless be aware that tactless and uncontrollable, Mr. Malcolm's diatribes resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature.

When I state that Mr. Malcolm's prognoses are based on biased statistics and faulty logic, which, in turn, invalidate the conclusions he draws from them, I'm merely trying to create a world in which mandarinism, fascism, and conformism are all but forgotten. The first lies that Mr. Malcolm told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun. He should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. Mr. Malcolm is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when the worst kinds of larcenous, filthy spongers I've ever seen break down the industrial-technological system. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that every word that leaves Mr. Malcolm's mouth is teeming with useful information. And fear of self-centered, pugnacious talebearers like Mr. Malcolm who discredit and intimidate the opposition.

This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: hooliganism. We must also assert with all the sincerity of informed experience and the desperate desire to see our beloved country survive that Mr. Malcolm can't fool me. I've met unrealistic cult leaders before, so I know that when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Mr. Malcolm stubbornly refuses to own up to his mistakes serves only to convince me that he makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Mr. Malcolm's claim that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. The fact of the matter is that he acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling.

What do you think of this: Mr. Malcolm can't relate what he sees to any broader principle? Don't let yourself be buffaloed by him. Don't let yourself be persuaded to believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing Mr. Malcolm and the slatternly carpetbaggers in his little empire just because a lot of malicious defalcators happen to believe that. Analyze the arguments for yourself and see if you agree with my claim that I despise everything about Mr. Malcolm. I despise Mr. Malcolm's attempts to gain a respectable foothold for his execrable policies. I despise how he insists that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that he appears to have found a new tool to use to help him muzzle his critics. That tool is paternalism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll indeed see why he wants to pit people against each other. Faugh.

With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, Mr. Malcolm frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are hideous. Only the worst sorts of disreputable marauders there are can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of conniving immoralism. An ancient Greek once wrote something to the effect of, "This is an exceptionally convincing illustration of the power wielded by Mr. Malcolm and of the destructive way in which he uses that power." Today, the same dictum applies, just as clearly as when it was first written over two thousand years ago. It is disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, he has signified his approval of insecure slimeballs who bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive.

Call me old-fashioned, but I am not predicting anything specific. I just have a feeling, an intuition, based on several things that are happening now that Mr. Malcolm will hinder economic growth and job creation when you least expect it. Will raucous blowhards ever review the basic issues at the root of the debate? Don't bet on it.

Mr. Malcolm's claim that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom is factually unsupported and politically motivated. Mr. Malcolm exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore. Ergo, sometimes I think that Mr. Malcolm is simply a willing pawn of those nonrepresentationalism-oriented drug lords who identify political and religious groups that are his political enemies and re-label them as "noxious sods" in order to justify operations against them. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that amid the babel of false tongues all around us, even basically good people sometimes find it hard to know what is right and what is wrong. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Mr. Malcolm's myopic artifices.

I would fain develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about Mr. Malcolm's rodomontades but I'm a bit worried that Mr. Malcolm will retaliate by turning the trickle of McCarthyism into a tidal wave. I'm worried because I defy the damnable numskulls who substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent. Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which he produces. His method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Mr. Malcolm-ism". It is a sneaky and avowedly disingenuous philosophy that aims to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. He maintains that his scribblings prevent smallpox. This is complete -- or at least, incomplete -- baloney. For instance, Mr. Malcolm fails to mention that he says that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt uproot our very heritage and pave the way for Mr. Malcolm's own bitter value system". You know, Mr. Malcolm can lie as much as he wants but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd definitely prevent anyone from hearing that he dreams of a time when he'll be free to use organized violence to suppress opposition. That's the way he's planned it and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't make a genuine contribution to human society. I've left out many criticisms of Mr. Andrew Malcolm from this wailing wall of a letter. Nevertheless, I avouch that it's a start -- a philosophical space where we can plant a new flag symbolizing all that is wrong with Mr. Malcolm.

(Wow! Thanks for reading. But talk about an endless hodgepodge of phrases!)

[Jim]

85 percent of Ron Paul Supporters believe that this political season signals the End Of OLD MEDIA

15 percent of Ron Paul supporters came to that conclusion even earlier.

(Good thing online blogs aren't old media.)

[Aaron]

I cant believe you wrote an article about 411 people(Probably FOX employees), and tried to bash Ron Paul supporters. It doesnt matter who I'm voting for, you're still an idiot...

[Fed Up]

As an avid Ron Paul supporter you will not deter me. Your article is fraudulent and biased. Ron Paul has more Meet Up members than any other candidate. Where do you think all that money comes from? No candidate has more loyal supporters than Ron Paul and we will not be disuaded. Others numbers go up and down weekly as people cannot make up their minds and have little loyalty. We will triumph!!

[Blake Wolfson]

This author is just trying to gain publicity by portraying a hit piece on Dr. Paul. As we all know Dr. Paul brings the people out. The more you write negative pieces on him the more mail and publicity this author receives. Perhaps if Andrew took an in depth look at what is happening in this country and around the word particularly when it comes to inflation/monetary policy, big banking, and military industrial complex he'd realize that Dr Paul is the best thing that happened to this nation in a very, very long time. It comes to no surprise that L.A. Times would promote this hit piece. Without this piece no one cares about L.A. Times. In fact I believe it's a well known fact that this newspaper has lost a big share of subscribers due to the fact on it's blatant bias and crappy understanding/reporting of world/political/economic policy.

Andrew, you're the reason why people are lackadaisical about governmental policy. You're a sheep, and in my honest opinion you are too stupid to hold the position of power in which you have wrongfully attained.

-Blake

[Chris]

Ron Paul is winning in fundraising and delegate counts, which is what matters. I would expect better research and more professionalism the next time you try to influence thoughts.

(FYI, no delegates have yet been chosen to be counted.)

[Dan J]

I'm wondering when media outlets will show point-by-point deconstructions of Ron Paul's core values. I think this would be a great way to kill his support.

Because I'm feeling generous, how about this:

* A real economist debunking the value of a gold standard (they'll have to debunk Goldwater/Greenspan/Mises, not just give talking points)
* A politician willing to explain why Iraq is worth more American/Iraqi lives and 100's of billions of taxpayer dollars
* A Secretary of State (Rice) to detail why American military forces are required at 700 bases throughout 130 foreign countries and why we should pay for it
* Detail why restoring our liberties (by repealing the Patriot Act, for one, restoring Habeas Corpus for another) is a bad thing
* A treatise on why income tax is necessary (detailing the collectivist notion that the working people should be forced to pay for the non working)

Those are decent starters. If you want to kill support for Ron Paul, you must do so by killing his message. Prove he is wrong. That is news people can use and need.

I long for the day when we get past demonstrably inaccurate polling techniques and cries of "ISOLATIONIST!!!!" as news and blog fodder. Alas, that day has not yet come, and until such time as I get the analysis and information I need in order to convince me to vote otherwise, Doctor and Congressman Ron Paul has my vote and full support. I am an expat but will give my full contribution, and even fly back to the US just to vote for him. Help pay for the trip by calling my bluff with a bet, I dare you.

Until then, let's start talking something of substance. Or is that too much to ask?

[Jim]

New Media? An LA Times sponsored blog?
Cute..Hip..

Hip, like my Grandfather shopping for a Kanye West CD.

Face it.
This kind of blogging is just cheaper than newsprint.

[John_In_FL]

To the author of this blog post:

Thanks for turning the LA Times into another place for Ron Paul supporters to gather.

On topic. I will pretend like I am not a Ron Paul supporter since clearly the author's intended audience was not Ron Paul supporters. Here it goes!

OH THANK GOD I WAS STARTING TO WORRY! Whew, glad to know that Doctor No's message is as dead with the American people as it has been with the Congress. It's good to know that the vast majority of American's (95%) disagree with the one person in Congress who has consistently stood up for the Constitution over the last 20-30 years.

I am so glad that American's have finally woken up and are starting to send a clear message to Congress. That message is get rid of Ron Paul and his terrible ideas of personal liberty and freedom! Finally! Now we can see some accountability in this country! I am so proud to stand beside those other 400 people! America is the best country in the world and we should only vote for people who are not Ron Paul to keep it that way!

Anyone but Ron Paul in 2008!