Ron Paulites SPEAK OUT !

Some of you may recall an item we published a week ago tonight on Ron Paul. It was a brilliantly written spoof alleging to expose the massive nationwide conspiracy behind the campaign of the 72-year-old libertarian ob-gyn who's been elected to the House of Representatives 10 times from Texas.

The blog item was tied to publication of a revealing feature by The Times' James Rainey on a particular group of Southern California Paul supporters and their earnest campaign efforts.

Although Paul's vociferous, heartfelt, defensive and offensive supporters, who patrol the Internet at all hours and will be on this item within minutes of its posting, will cite encouraging bookmakers' odds from somewhere, the political reality is that Dr. Paul, as they reverently call him, has, let's call it, realistically a very longshot chance of actually winning the Republican presidential nomination.

So what? It's a fascinating grassroots political story in which a widely diverse collection of dissatisfied Americans have spontaneously congregated via the Internet and some 1,200 meet-up groups to organize and proselytize for their man. It really is grass-roots democracy in action, never mind the outcome. In some TV appearances Paul seems almost bewildered by the wildfire support.

But it's there, as evidenced by growing fundraising numbers that totaled a near-record one day $4.2 million last month. And Paul supporters aim to break Hillary Clinton's one-day record of $6.2 million come Dec. 16, which is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and probably as good a day as any for rebels to try to make news for their candidate. A counter on Paul's website puts the quarter's fundraising at nearly $10.8 million.

But the point of this item is to examine some of the comments submitted here in recent days by Paul boosters and opponents (yes, there are some willing to say so). Hundreds of readers -- 60+ pages of printouts -- shared their opinions, most of them printable. They reveal an eclectic mix of people, who identify themselves as lawyers, Democrats, housewives, first-time voters, young, old, suspicious of established institutions like the dreaded MSM (mainstream media) who resent being portrayed as fringe fanatics.

"Yikes!" one wrote, "you let everyone know that we are mostly normal people with a sense of concern for the direction of the nation." Trevor Winton wrote, "We are ordinary citizens who seriously want our country back." There are many enemies to the Paul Nation -- an overblown federal government... 

that curbs freedoms with the Patriot Act, usurps state powers, the IRS, big banks, the Federal Reserve, a military-industrial complex that makes money involving the country in costly foreign entanglements like Iraq. Many Paul supporters admit they do not agree with him on everything -- say, a return to the gold standard or the perceived threat to American sovereignty of a proposed super-highway across Texas. Paul supporters find it hard to believe that others don't see that threat.

They're not bothered by Paul's suggestion that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks by bombing Iraq. They like his plain-spokenness, states' rights and America-first attitude. "The choice for America," one reader wrote, "is simply, follow the Constitution and the rule of law, get the Govt out of your bedroom, and your wallets and live your life as you see fit."

Many Paulites see no difference between the two major parties. "I'm a 46-year-old SAG actor and US Navy veteran," wrote Bruno Amato. "I haven't voted since 1980, when I voted for Ronald Reagan, and never donated to a campaign, but I have contributed and will continue and I will definitely be voting for Ron Paul."

They don't trust the polls, which show Paul's support up from 1% to the 8% range, because, they say, many Paul supporters have no land phones. (The L.A. Times Poll does factor in cellphones, by the way.)  "The supporters of Ron Paul have brought me faith in America again," Chris said. "It is a wonderful, energizing feeling. Hope is powerful. Our power when we work together is stronger than any defense contractor or lobbying groups."

"Ron Paul is the only candidate out there who really wants to take the country in a totally new direction," Heather Czerniak wrote. "Forget about policing the world and sending our kids to die for someone else's freedom."

"I can't wait to see what happens in New Hampshire!" Chris Foster said.

A lot of other people -- Paulites or not -- feel the same.

(UPDATE: Extreme Mortman now takes all this Top of the Ticket interest into account too.)

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Dann McCreary]

"... within minutes of its posting..."

Wait for it... wait for it... wait for it...

Hello Andrew!
Yes, very astute, here we are!

And yes, I for one am far more impressed with the responses of "the common man"
who is fed up with our massively bloated federal government leviathan than I am
with your assessment of Dr. Paul's chances of being nominated.

Dr. Paul's candor and artless sincerity in presenting the truth has finally awakened
a force even greater than the overbearing power of the federal government -- the
power of "the poor huddled masses, yearning to breathe free."

[STEVE]

No what Ron Paul supporters are for the most part are educated people like myself that actually know the facts about him and not the lies that are being printed and stated on the news networks, for instance your lie you just printed

"They're not bothered by Paul's suggestion that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks by bombing Iraq. They like his plain-spokenness, states' rights and America-first attitude."

This is a lie he has never said that America invited the attack and i dare you to show me any such proof because it does not exist because know what he said i will link the video here of the debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc

Listen carefully to what he says and never does he say we invited the attack.

What he said was that our foreign policy of us having bases in the middle east contributed to the 9-11 A STATEMENT CONFIRMED IN THE OFFICIAL 9-11 COMMISSION REPORT.

Maybe if you so called journalists would actually print the truth once in a while we would't have to complain the way we do and all we are asking for is fair reporting not special treatment.

[STEVE]

why do you keep deleting my comment?

(Because posting the same comment four times doesn't mean it gets posted four times. Yours is here once like everyone else's.)

[Mitch C]

"They're not bothered by Paul's suggestion that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks by bombing Iraq."

Nope, not bothered by that because it's only one of many reasons cited by Paul for the attacks, which were subtantiated by several other government agencies and high ranking officials. Don't you research before writing an article?

Other reasons began in 1953 when we overthrew the Iranian government, supported Sadam Hussein in other conflicts, supported Bin Laden in other conflicts, we have bases on their holy land, etc., etc.

[James D]

"They're not bothered by Paul's suggestion that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks by bombing Iraq."

There you go again Andrew. There you go again. You write a good fairly-well balance article about the phenomenon of this Presidential candidate and then you go and spoil it all by injecting this viral untruth and asserting it as fact.

Ron Paul did not suggest that. Fact. If you think otherwise be a good journalist and do the research and find the evidence. You won't find any because it's not there.

Just the facts ma'am. Just the facts. We'd all appreciate that immensely.

Thank you and good night.

[Brent Burk]

that curbs freedoms with the Patriot Act, usurps state powers, the IRS, big banks, the Federal Reserve, a military-industrial complex that makes money involving the country in costly foreign entanglements like Iraq. Many Paul supporters admit they do not agree with him on everything -- say, a return to the gold standard or the perceived threat to American sovereignty of a proposed super-highway across Texas. Paul supporters find it hard to believe that others don't see that threat.

1) Ron Paul wants to make it legal to have competing currencies backed by gold and silver, he does not want to "return to the gold standard", at least in the sense of backing the US Dollar with gold.

2) If people looked it up, they'd realize a NAFTA Superhighway / North American Union are at least being legislated. State Congresses, like Texas and Oklahoma, have passed bills that would bar such a thing. The US Congress has too. The previous president of Mexico confirmed such a plan on Larry King, and Canadian government websites even list the map, calling it "NAFTA Super Highway".

3) Let's get this straight, Ron Paul did NOT say America "invited" the attacks. That was Rudy's words, it's annoying to say such a thing. Paul said our US Foreign Policy is flawed and incites hatred, the hatred that leads to suicide terrorism. Occupation is the #1 leading cause of suicide terrorism. That doesn't mean American invited it, it means we have a flawed policy that has unintended consciouses and it needs to be fixed.

But ya...

[xtrabiggg]

'Brilliantly Written Spoof', eh... nothing like giving your own writng a blockbuster review! Sarcasm aside, it's geat to see an article in the 'Dreaded Mainstream Media' that actually acknowledges the diversity of the supporters of Ron Paul. Many in the media are waking up to the fact that the reason they get so many posts and replies to a story on Ron Paul is because HE ACTUALLY HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING HIM! They also might be talking to someone who actually understands IT protocols who explained to them how ignorant they sound when they talk of 'spambots' and 'spamming websites'. As an IT professional, it's easy to spot a bot-driven program, and I have yet to see one tht can initiate individualized and specific messages and posts. Those type of arguments are usually used by lazy and uninformed writers who don't bother to research or fact-check their stories.

Now, I'm sure I'll get someone parroting the party line 'but he's almost non-existent in the polls!'. I have quite a few years experience in market research as well, and I've found that as technology and personal communications habits have advanced, the reliability of polls to accurately measure REAL opinion strength has declined dramatically. I'll spare you the droll explanations about methodology problems and sampling errors increasing, but the bottom line is, when you commission a poll, you get what you pay for. Major media outlets want a horse race 'American Presidential Idol' style, so they skew the questions to either minimalize Ron Paul's supporters, screen them out or eliminate his name from the poll entirely! And the fact that they ask only 'likely Republican Primary voters' is telling. In poll-speak, that means people who voted in the last primary. If you remember, George Bush ran unopposed in almost every primary the last time around. That means these so-called 'scientific' polls of 'likely voters' should REALLY say 'a poll of supporters of president Bush' if there were truth-in-advertising laws for these polls. And for one more piece of evidence, how about how well the polls worked in the last two Presidential elections? Pretty sad, huh?

As for measurenment of real strength, look to the number of actual supporters who show up for rallies and meet-up groups. Look at the fundraising- not from large, big-money PAC donors, but from individual citizens. Hell, even Rudy Giuliani was on TV yesterday talking about how he 'sees Ron Paul supporters wherever' he goes. I've heard many national reporters comment on how they see mostly Ron Paul yard signs- sometimes exclusively- wherever they go in New Hampshire and Iowa.

So while the 'mainstream media' continues to treat Ron Paul and his supporters as a 'fringe' group of 'wackos' and 'spambots' (whatever THAT meaningless term is), out in the real world there is a very strong and deep vein of support for Ron Paul and his solutions for the ver real and difficult problems this country is facing. He is the ONLY candidate with the courage (and intellect) to discuss solutions that will stop the economic bleeding-out that our country is suffering from. He is also the only candidate to talk about a REAL end to the Iraq war, unlike every other supposed 'anti-war' candidate, who promises publicly to end the war, then takes campaign donations and support form the very people who are profiteering off the war!

Once again, thank you for the relatively balanced story on Ron Paul and his supporters. Welcome aboard the reality train- it's leaving the media wonderland station and headig=ng to victory for ROn Paul in 2008!

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

[Jeanette Doney]

Proudly reporting to duty within minutes of Andrew Malcolm's post. I'll even buy the print edition when you publish the majic words: RON PAUL

[Keith]

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has not been bought and paid for. He is not well rehearsed because he allows his principles to guide his speech (something no other politician dare do). That is what is so entrancing about him. Those qualities are we need most as a nation right now. An ethical, principled, and visionary leader. Much to the consternation of the MSM, many of us have become immune to their programming and are seeking the TRUTH.

[Jon Duran]

We don't need American hating posts like this in a time of war. I've reported it to the proper authorities and I hope something is done about it. When Paul rants about freedom he's really talking about Surrender.

Freedom, you see, is slavery.

[Terry]

Actually Hillary's single largest one day donation was $1.9 million on March 28, 2007 according to the FEC reports.

Also, perhaps the story about the so-called scientific polls that MSM keeps pointing to as a measure of the candidates success ought to be investigated. First of all, they do not even add RP's name to a huge portion of the polls and his support is reflected in "other". Second of all, maybe you can investigate and do a story on this fraudulent poll. Not only did they not give Ron Paul as an option, they actually removed peoples names from the call list when they choose "other": Ths is hardly the frst time, just someone finally managed to record this particular polling company. Here's the post, YouTube video of the recording, and the name of the polling company. How about an investigation of that or do you prefer to perpetuate the myth that these polls actually mean something? They are rigges to the gills.

Post dated December 7th on the Ron Paul forums:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=49063

I just got a phone poll call at 11:33 AM. It was exactly like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPpCvF7N3Vg
and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYiUAaBd1U

I pressed 6 for other and was told I would be removed from the list, which was choice # 7.

Caller ID identifies the caller as, Info Cision Man and caller # is 1-330-670-8676.

[Informer]

We "will be on this item within minutes of its posting" because we are educated adults who know how to make a Google RSS feed sorted by date.

[Chris Johnson]

Thanks Andrew I really enjoyed the article. I believe RP can win but even if he doesn't the movement will continue. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of all political backrounds have come together to fight for liberty. RP doesn't promise us anything other than the freedom to live our lives the way we want.

Win or lose I and many others are going the distance with this man. I have to tell you it is a really good feeling.

RP08!

[Mike]

God bless Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution!

[Ryan from Philadelphia]

The Philadelphia Inquirer mostly relies on AP releases. Thank you, LA Times, for forming a conscience opinion.

For Liberty!

[leanne]

It's a freedom movement, and I suspect that this is the early stage of history in the making.

[Elaine McKillop, Esq]

Very condescending tone, it is what I call a soft gloved smear. We don't believe the polls because we know the numbers are cooked, a lot us have advanced degrees and know about statistical relevance. Here are some facts for you. Ron Paul has more meet-up groups than all of the other candidates combined, with about 90,000 attending members all over the world. Ron Paul will probably raise the most money this quarter, except if Romney writes himself a check. Ron Paul has the most Google hits of any candidate. Ron Paul has the most signs and billboards, put up by grassroots organizations than any other candidate he. He has a blimp. More Ron Paul shirts yard signs, slim gyms, ect have been sold Ron Paul has more campaign songs. . Ron Paul has more u-tube post. Ron Paul has crowds show up when he appears larger than the other Republicans, at St Pete for instance 1,000 Ron Paul supporters to about 100 for all others combined. Ron Paul has had great success at straw polls, in spite of the fact that Romney has been paying off the Republican Party and stuffing the ballots and tampering with the voting machines, so we don't believe that our candidate is not going to win, Not one real vote has been cast and Ron is leading the pack in many measurable way. The Revolution is growing. The taste of Freedom has invigorated our troops, it is too late for the likes of you to stop us now.

[Flo]

http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-330-670-8676 More info on this so called poll that is calling you.

Why Paul? Integrity. Something the politicians lost a long time ago. I have studied Paul for 15 years he is absolutely TRANSPARENT

I would trust him with my children, my checkbook and my country.

[NSB]

Andrew,

there is quite a bit more to it than...

"They don't trust the polls, which show Paul's support up from 1% to the 8% range, because, they say, many Paul supporters have no land phones."

This article (link below) is a good breakdown of the problems with polls.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/lindgren2.html

Seriously...pollsters often manufacture results....landline vs. cellphone only accounts for a small portion of the real discrepancy.

[Mitchell Thompson]

My wife & I are in our late 40's. We drive trucks cross country for a living. Have always voted but never given to a campaign. We plan to give on Dec 16 for the first time. It is time to send a message to big government. We don't want you any more.
Ron Paul has my vote and I an encouraging everyone that I meet for now until the election to vote for him.

[John in FL]

So funny to see when the journalist wake up to what is going on.

To be honest, I love adding comments with an array of Ron Paul supporters because its proof that Freedom and the true spirit of America is alive and well.

There is a revolution going on out there and its just beginning!

Ron Paul 2008!

[Joe Lawson]

Within in Minutes of your posting I want to let you know that we don't need to use oddsmakers - although they have been right all along, but according to Fox News says some polls are now showing Ron Paul in 3rd in Iowa.

(Thanks for reading the blog. Puzzled over how oddsmakers could have been right all along when there haven't been any elections yet.)

[Paul Supporter]

This is just another MSM effort to steer voters away from Paul. Comments like "realistically a very longshot chance" try to play to would-be-voters' natural tendancy to vote for a candidate who, according to the polls right now, has the best chance to win.

Comments like this perpetuate MSM suspicion. Before you got to the supposed real story (about readers' comments), why did you inject that statement? To further your agenda is the only realistic explanation - although it was veiled as a segue into the real story.

No one has cast a vote and there is evidence that polls are at best, inaccurate and at worst, rigged. You're entitled to your opinion on his chances of winning. But your opinion is read by, and believed by, many readers. This baseless influence is bothersome.

But not to worry. Ben Franklin said all that needed to be said:
"Printers are educated in the belief that when men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public; and that when Truth and Error have fair play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter."

MSM will never control the Internet so Truth will have its fair play.

(Glad to be here for you to read and discuss and to disagree and to publish your opinion uncensored. Doesn't seem like this msm blog is trying to control anything.)

[Elizabeth]

Dear Mr. Malcolm,

Thank you very much for the story on our candidate.

You cannot imagine the degree of admiration this man generates.

I have found, in my travels to speak with people about Ron Paul, that there seems to be an inverse relationship between one's age and one's capacity for believing in the possibility of change in our entrenched and perverted system. In plainer words, the younger you are, the more possibilities you can see for moving into a new reality. The young people "get" Ron Paul; they see into his depth, his brilliance, his authentic leadership. I invite you to take a deeper look and see what they are seeing and feel what they are feeling. I myself never realized how jaded, hopeless, cynical and resigned I felt about our country until I discovered Ron Paul, and felt a surge of new hope. This is not an intellectual construct; this is an actual physiological experience, and a most uplifting one at that. It gives me hope in each individual's potential and in mankind's future.

[Jack Russell]

Greetings from Australia

It is interesting to see what is happening in 'grassroots' America. The Ron Paul Movement is doing more to repair attitudes towards the US than anything else. The attempts to supress and 'put-down' Dr Paul and his supporters just served to amplify the (lack of) values that those outside the US see as hypocrisy.

Have a good day y'all, Vote Ron Paul

Regards

Jack

[Paul Supporter]

wrt "Glad to be here for you to read and discuss and to disagree and to publish your opinion uncensored. Doesn't seem like this msm blog is trying to control anything."

I commend you for having the decency to allow readers to comment. I agree with you that the BLOG is not trying to control anything. But I respectfully still believe you are trying to control public opinion. Do you believe you are trying to control public opinion?

The reality is that most people hardly have the time to get to know Paul. When reading about a lesser known candidate, oftentimes, all readers have time for is the first few paragraphs, if that. You know this. You also know that your comments, by simply being in your position, carry more weight. Because of this fact, I find your comment about his longshot chances bothersome because they do influence readers - and in an unfairly negative fashion, in my opinion.

It wouldn't be so bad if the vast majority of MSM outlets weren't doing it, but they are. I'd be perfectly content if the public knew who he was and what he stood for and then voted against him. But when all of the MSM outlets
1. make comments like yours,
2. talk about his |insert negative adjective here| followers,
3. don't give him equal time in debates, and
4. take Paul's comments out of context,
I can't help but feel Paul's candidacy is slighted. This being the case, the American public are the losers for never even having the chance to get to know him.

Regards.

(Appreciate your comments and your visiting us to read the item. Hope you had a chance to read last week's item too and some of the dozens of others that have mentioned the "obscure" Ron Paul here in recent months. He happens to be the only candidate, by the way, who has his/her own Subject category to search on this homepage.
Probably not what someone would expect if we really were trying to ignore or suppress him. But understand such movements need to have something unifying to push against. Doesn't look like the msm's 'suppression' efforts are working too well, does it? Wouldn't that please Paul supporters?)

[Polls are blah]

Of course we don't care too much about the polls! Polls said that Howard Dean would win the Democratic primary and that John Kerry was going to win the '04 election. Polls are like the boy who cried wolf... they are quite often wrong....especially when it comes to politics. So why should anyone trust them? They are NOT truley scientific by any means. They are designed to generate artificial promises and hype and can easily be minipulated or designed to perform a certain outcome. Look how many polls have already removed Ron Paul's name simply because they don't like the results he *fairly* received...

Polls....seriously, why do we still use them and worship them. Thats been the ONLY weapon the MSM has attempted to use against Paul...doesn't seem to be working too well.

[J. D. - Redlands, ca]

Why I WILL vote for Dr. Paul:
Ron Paul is conservative in his views. However, he would not be a "conservative" president. He would not pursue plans and initiatives to institute "conservative" values.
His desire is to protect the individual liberty of his family and the rest of us.
To do that he will begin, and 8 years would only be a beginning do not delude yourself of the difficulty of the task, to return our federal govt. to the constraints dictated by the constitution.
The constitution is nothing more than a set of rules that if followed will guarantee the individuals inherent liberty. The constitution does not give that liberty to the individual; for the men that wrote the constitution did not have it to give. It is ours by Birth. It can never be given, only taken if we allow it to be.
Our liberties are fading bit by bit as one person or another uses the Fed Govt. as a stick to impose their agenda on the rest of us; with total disregard for the constitution.
Ron Paul believes as I do and I have complete confidence that he will not act in any way contrary to the law that is the constitution. I also sincerely believe that he will ACT to bring our Republic back from the precipice upon which we now totter.
In my view murder is less of a crime than imposing unconstitutional laws on the people of the republic. Doing so limits the freedom of the whole populace; Murder only steals freedom from one.
So, while Dr. Paul thinks that life begins at conception, he recognizes that to use the Federal Govt. to address the issue is to step outside the bounds set by the constitution and that to do so would be to open the door to much more interference in our lives.
I am supporting Dr. Paul because he supports my inherent right to live my life as I choose, in as much as others right to do the same are not infringed upon by me. That is the bottom line for me. After that, all other things follow.
Anyone who would use or support with a vote the use of the Fed Govt. as a bludgeon to do "good" aka Health care and other entitlement programs, I suggest that they are very shortsighted and act in direct opposition to their best interest by doing so.
Consider: As long as those who think as you think remain in power than you are alright. However, things change and what results when those who think much differently than you come to power and begin imposing their "good" upon you?
Let’s follow the rule of freedom of the individual to pursue life as they choose; let’s support the constitution and let us do so by supporting Dr. Ron Paul.

[mookrit]

Ronald Reagan said many of the same things as Paul, just in a more eloquent way.

I don't see why the founding fathers' views are suddenly classified
as "fringe". Do Americans now consider a candidate who bases his entire campaign upon strictly following the Constitution as holding "fringe" views? These were once mainstream back in the days when Presidents at least paid lip service to Constitution.

The only thing it tells me is that journalists have a very shallow understanding of the issues they report. And as a consequence of their superficial reporting, the people who consume mainstream media (many of whom aren't interested in politics, economics or law beyond the information the media offers) elect their representatives based on an equally poor understanding of a candidate's positions. Hence Paul's support is low in the polls.

I would have thought the media would like Paul, but it turns out they like the candidates who can smooth talk and have presidential mannerisms rather than one's that tell it like it is, warts and all.

[TJF]

The tide is starting to turn my friends. The people are out in force behind Ron Paul and the media is slowly picking up on that reality. Articles across the board are becoming more even-handed and fair. I think the blimp might be the turning point.

Go Ron Paul!

[Mike Creech]

It is about time the government takes responsibility for its self, and its actions. As I see it Ron Paul is the only candidate truthfully willing to do so. Everyone else reeks of empty promises and fluff designed to "tickle ears."

As for Ron Paul being a long shot, where do you do your research? A mantra does not become true the more times it is repeated by the media. If you turn to phone polling, start acknowledging that the vast majority of such polls do not have Ron Paul's name, but fit him into the "other" category.

Instead try looking at his fund raising. Not only is he raising unheard of numbers, through numerous small donations (instead of fewer large donations from special interest groups), but his supporters fund and organize other events and fund raisers. The most recent of which may be the $200,000 dollar blimp.

Not to mention his numerous meat up groups (not on the internet), or the staggering numbers he pulls in when he speaks, or outside of debates.

Also, take a look at the straw polls, in which he is doing very well.

Please, educate yourself.

[Bill]

Darn, these automated spambots sure do have a lot of human intelligence. The LA times should consider installing some. They do better research than their current staff.

[Evan]

How do you people come of with these brilliant predictions?

Man have low poll numbers therefore man is long-shot.

This just in: Lots of people don't actually know what Giuliani stands for. But he is the mayor of 9/11.

Its the same with every candidate. People don't know what they are "voting" for in the phone polls, nor do they really care.

Phone polls don't mean anything until people start paying attention. Until then they might as well vote for the cool looking dude who claims to be a conservative (Romney) or the mayor of 9/11 (Rudy)

Its funny that you guys call Ron Paul a long-shot over and over again to let the masses know they would be wasting their vote if they voted for him, but you don't call the more apparently long-shot candidates a long-shot over and over again.

It must be due to the fact that so many people support Ron Paul that you have to keep saying he's a long-shot in order to inform everybody of their wasted vote if they vote for him, There are so many Ron Paul supporters out there that don't see the writing on the wall. The writing must have been covered up with the RonPaul2008 signs that represent more free advertising then all other candidates combined.

This is all really funny because the reason you have to say that Ron Paul is a long-shot so often is that there are so many people out there supporting him: giving him a very good chance of winning the nomination that he has no chance of winning.

[Mick Russom]

Your lies against Ron Paul prove you are a yellow journalist and part of the military industrial complex and a slave to your wage masters.

WE the PEOPLE will not stand to be suppressed by your Propaganda outlet! The only person in the lead in Iowa right now IS RON PAUL, and you can LIE about this all you want, but we shall see come election day if your minions in the complex dont Rig it like Putin's election.

Even Chavez, hell, even Pinochet had lost a RIGGED election, BE PREPARED TO LOSE your strangle hold on america!

[will raleigh]

First about your article. Its certainly one of the more balanced ones from the MSM but as has been promptly pointed out by other replies, there are a couple of 'more subtle than usual' factual errors and baseless negative opinion that leads me to concur with another post in categorizing the article as a 'soft gloved smear'.

Understand that people can see this from you now!
They can see it clearly on the news channels and that is why by most reasonable measures, Ron Paul should win.

By the way, i'm English. Like many others around the world I've always loved the American ideal, defended it to the last. I began to believe like so many others that it had become the 'Evil Empire' last year but my eyes were opened up to the wider issues by the energy, insight and dedication of Alex Jones, who in turn introduced me to the man & message of Ron Paul.
They have driven hope for Free Humanity to continue in this world!
The American constitution in THE world standard on what freedom is & how it can survive.........if the American people fail to act to protect it, they will fall!
....and the world will follow!

[Angelina Alongi]

I voted for Bush twice and I am also a long time listener of Rush Limbaugh. This presidental election, I am voting for Ron Paul. I feel like I have awoken from a very long sleep. You have to admit that Liberty is infectious and can spread like a brush fire. Can't wait to get my rights back when Mr Paul is elected!

[Lucia SChmitz]

Thank you for writing a fair article about Ron Paul and quoting Paulistes who are normal people.
If you go back to history, Winston Churchill until right before the war was considered by parliament (specially his own party) and the press as quixotic, eccentric and out of reality and all because what he said was the truth. But the people loved him and he became prime minister, because he was the only true leader who had been loyal to his principals and convictions for years and had the courage to face a very grim future for Great Britain. Read: The Last Lion Alone.
I believe Ron Paul is that kind of leader. What he says is the truth and people love him for that. His voting record in congress speaks by itself.
It is very sad for me to see how he is mistreated by the press. A perfect example is the last GOP debate on CNN. He was completely ignored, was never asked about the war, the economy, etc and I believe that is because when he talks people listen to him and why the press in general don't want people to listen to him,? Well I leave it to each reader or journalist to come to their own conclusions.

[Matt C]

I was astonished that you repeated the old "invited 9/11" canard, but I think your responses to comments in here are excellent and even handed.

[F. Smart]

Andrew:

You've done a pretty good job of trying to capture some of the core energy of what's driving this movement. To understand this in more depth I think you should do a personal interview with G. Edward Griffin. He's a very well known author, researcher, publisher, businessman and documentarian who lives just north of San Diego. He's also the founder of "Freedom Force International" - see freedom-force.org

If you read Ed Griffin's "Creed Of Freedom" you will have a much better understanding of the energy that's powering this "Ron Paul Phenomenon". It's FREEDOM!! Pure and simple.

Keep up the good work!

Peace and God Bless!

[David]

Thanks for your article.

J. D. Rockefeller, Sr. ( a silent leading founder of the Federal Reserve Bank)stated that "Competition is a sin" ie, a banking cabal. Ron Paul is the only candidate who correctly sees the true roots of freedom, economic liberty and personal liberty! Remember Yorktown!

[vegas]

I doubt there is any cellphone bias in polls, but remember that on primary/caucus day, nobody just calls you while you sit comfortably at home. You have to drive to a location, perhaps in inclement weather, and put effort into it. So a greater fraction of Ron Paul supporters are likely to put in this effort, as evidenced by the fact that a greater fraction call in text message polls and write comments on blogs. Also, many Ron Paul supporters just registered to be Republican recently because of Ron Paul, and almost all of these people will show up to vote, while supporters of other candidates were most likely already registered, and typically about 15% of these people actually show up to vote.

[Tess]

Ron Paul stands for Our Constitution, Our Liberty and Freedom, and the American citizens. He has my vote and support here in Central California.

[Pliny]

The media keeps repeating things like "longshot" and "cannot win" as if they were talismanic charms, the mere incantation of which will stymie Dr. Paul's ability to be elected. The polls that they keep pointing to are almost worthless at this point. The electorate has not rallied behind any one person as seen by the constant flux surrounding the alleged "top tier." The polls are also narrowly drawn from a tiny pool of Republicans that voted in the past primary. They show none of Dr. Paul's new supporters who are getting ready to turn out from all sectors of the electorate. Conservatives who don't want to vote for liberal "Republican in name only" candidates, independents, Reagan Democrats, and others who want small government and liberty more than they care about being party hardliners.

[Chris]

At least you didn't focus on freaks like me who hold out the small possibility that there isn't even going to be an election.

[Sac Mars]

So, Andrew.... you want to be a pundit. Ok..And I love your zingers.

Listen here son, if you want to see 'reality' you have to get off your hiney, off the computer, tell your mammy you'll get your Coke by yourself from now on, and go outside and see what's happening on the grass. Because that is the ONLY reality.

Take care, son.

[Mark McDonough]

Regarding Presidential hopeful Ron Paul; whatever your personal views are, they don't change the fact that the majority of our elected officials, both Democrat and Republican alike, don't respect the Constitution of the United States as the rule of law, or the guiding philosophy for the people. Keep in mind that every elected official, and most appointed officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect us from our enimies, both foreign and domestic.

What does this mean to you? Well, if they don't respect the Constitution which grants you inalienable rights, and control of you life, and directs them on how to handle economic and foreign policies, and elightens them on what their responsibilities are to you and me, then they must respect and follow some other sort of philosophy, or rule of law, so what is it?

Well, don't take my word, or Ron Pauls word for it friends, investigate it yourself, and you be the judge. Google Council of Foreign Relations, North American Union, Texas Trans Corridor, Texas Super Highway, Trilateral Commission, and the Amero for starters. This should help.

Allow me to submit, while average Americans like you and I have been arguing over, and being tied up over small issues, our government has been moving forward with bigger plans without you, that will affect you.

So, like Ron Paul or not, we have a real problem that we must unite on. it's my opinion that Ron Paul, although not perfect, is the only candidate wiling to soud the alarm and alert us to what's going on.

[John Dennis]

Always a breath of fair air for Ron Paul and his folks on this blog. That's all we ask of the MSM, fair treatment and time. Thanks!

[Douglas H.]

Ron Paul will be the next President of these United States. Who am I so say this?

As 82ND vet, it is disturbing to me that many in our great nation seem to favor candidates who are so eager to sacrifice individual liberties for “The Common Good.” I have sworn an oath to support and defend The Constitution of the United States, against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. That compels me to speak out against candidates who would treat our founding documents with disdain. That is precisely why I support Ron Paul.

[Throatpoker]

Ron Paul is gaining even in the far right conservative territory. Those considered for the polls are the ones who voted for Bush last elections, so they are both a very small group of people, and very stubborn in their belief. Nonetheless, we're making ground on that field too.

[John Howard]

Our author writes of Paul supporters that

"They're not bothered by Paul's suggestion that the U.S. invited the 9/11 attacks by bombing Iraq. "

The use of the term "invited" hints at "deserved" which has nothing to do with Ron Paul's position. This is the word that a Fox moron and the Giuliani campaign has used to misrepresent Paul's position.

Condescension, misrepresentation, and dismissive predictions seem to be the substance of the major "news" outlets when they are dealing with Ron Paul. Their arrogance is tiresome and transparent and they are losing market share at an ever-increasing rate. They may succeed in their desparate attempts to make sure that not enough people learn the truth about Ron Paul for him to win this election. But they will fail to stop the revolution that is going to crush big government and big media, for the simple reason that liberty and truth are more popular than a "terror" driven police state and its snide corporate propoganda producers.