Dr. Paul excluded from the Des Moines Register analysis...

After reading your highly engaging editorial post regarding civil liberties, I was immediately taken aback from your (or your boards) collective decision on excluding Ron Paul from a potential profile page. I was intrigued as to why such a decision was taken in the first place, especially given the fact that Ron Paul not only has enjoyed the highest fourth quarter contributions (monetary value) but also has sign a significant rise in support in both polls and the Iowa Caucuses. Much to my chagrin, the readers were given the rationalization that the reason some candidates were omitted was owing to the fact that Ron Paul did not make as many appearances in Iowa as the other candidates.

This is severely problematic. While I do concede that Ron Paul may have made the least amount of campaign stops in Iowa, the very fact that he is ahead in the polls (notwithstanding yours as well) of those who have committed more time in Iowa (read Tancredo, McCain) is a testament to the fact that his influence and vision is real. Also, to base your decision on the "magnitude" rather than the "quality" of campaigning in Iowa is a gross oversight and a profound oversimplification of what is at stake.

More importantly, its is beneficial for your newspaper and the residents of Iowa to entertain and reflect on a contrasting view that Ron Paul so eloquently provides, something clearly lacking in some of the other candidates you decided to profile.
Please reconsider this decision and kindly give this man the time and attention he so rightly deserves. To do so otherwise would be a travesty.

Regards,
Sarem
Seattle.

It has recently been brought to my attention that you will be responsible for deciding who is, and who is not included in a political analysis summary by the Des Moines Register. Apparently through logic that is completely foreign to myself you have elected not to include 10 term Congressman Ron Paul from Texas in your analysis. If I have been misinformed please accept my apology and feel free to stop reading now and please be so kind as to simply reply to my email and make me aware of this error. Like many Ron Paul supporters, I have only recently found myself inspired by a candidate to a degree that I have not only registered with the appropriate party to vote for him in the primary, I have spent obscene amounts of my own money and time making people aware of this candidate, his positions on issues, his experience, his classically American life and childhood, his impeccable character and integrity, and the rare opportunity to vote for a man for President who few people could say they know of a person that could be considered his equal on any of his qualities, much less all of them. I personally find myself frustrated that you are not including the candidate that for me, and so many others, including the majority of our military service men and woman who have made monetary contributions to candidates in this primary season, brings excitement, integrity and concisely stated positions to the field of “meet the new boss same as the old boss” options we currently have for President. I would very much appreciate an explanation, expounding upon the reasoning your decision has been based on in excluding only this Republican candidate from the summary. I am very excited to have found hope in restoring honor to the Office of the President of the US and have been doing my part as an American to be sure that Ron Paul will have the opportunity to do this for our country. If there is something I am missing here please inform me.
______________________________________________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority,
keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
- Samuel Adams

Dear Ms. Hunter:

While I didn't read the dmreg in question, my information is that
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul was omitted from a political analysis piece
that you authorized. If this is the case, may I register my deep
disappointment. As a Viet Nam Veteran, father, husband, and Drake Bulldog,
LA '74, I am both offended and 'unsurprised' by this type of omission.
Ignoring a man of Dr. Paul's standing and stature is not only ill-advised
and insulting, but is completely transparent to all Americans and all Iowans
who follow politics. Ignoring Dr.Paul will ultimately 'blow back' on those
who flippantly dismiss this candidate. While he might be the 'long shot',
the distance of the shot has been shrinking for months.

This type of journalistic elitism is the very stuff that has propelled the
'press' to ever-deepening levels of distrust and disgust among the American
people. We all reap what we sow Ms. Hunter. Insulting your customers will
not produce a crop of good will, much the contrary. Reality will
ultimately manifest itself. Be mindful of what you sow.

Most Respectfully,

Joseph A. Rohner III
Boise, ID

Be prepared for thousands of angry emails including 5 from me (work, school, friends, and two junk mail receivers).

"Freedom is popular"
-Ron Paul

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

So today the Register has an article entitled Poll: Candidates lack details on big issues!

i sent Ms Hunter an email the day before yesterday. it was short and polite. i just said i was perplexed to see them exclude Ron Paul especially considering that (1) most of the issue statements on the page could have come directly from his mouth and (2) he's got tremendous support. i added that i know that these are the decisions that editorial boards get to make, but that i wasn't buying their stated reason.

her response:

Just acknowledging I have received and read your message. Thank you for recognizing that this was editorial commentary, not news coverage.

a Democrat after the primaries. Read the questions and reasons for the questions. If they included Ron Paul, they would have to talk about his positions on the war, economy and immigration and that would shift people to GOP. This is Frank Luntz on the left.

Good thing you excluded Ron Paul from your article, quoting “as Ron Paul, who didn't make the cut”. Because now his campaign can’t continue without your assessment. He is now leading in donations than any other GOP candidate. If you close your eyes real tight, and keep telling yourself it isn’t true, it never happened. But perhaps you should open your eyes and see what so many people support Ron Paul, not just on the internet and emails, but with their own declining dollar!

Mike

Ron Paul for President!!

Here is what I wrote her, and I felt it fitting.

"I will make it short and sweet. What you have done is not in line with American and Democratic values.

FYI, Putin is currently doing the same thing by excluding candidates. Maybe you are in the wrong country".

-"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes its laws". - M.A. Rothschild

Dear Ms. Hunter:

Sitting up here in Canada watching the buildup to 2008 election unfold in the U.S., I am baffled and quite mystified why you would exclude Ron Paul from your analysis. What happened to unbiased reporting of the news and political events? Are you and your paper not concerned about the impact that such unprofessional journalism will have on the credibility of your paper? And what about your career as a journalist? Are you not concerned that a journalist who censors the news by deliberately excluding persons or events is unlikely to have much of a future in journalism, particularly now that the internet is taking market share away from the MSM?

Therefore, please do the correct thing and cover Ron Paul.

Sincerely,

Wayne D. Goodfellow, Ottawa, Canada

Dear Ms. Hunter,

You exclusion of Dr. Ron Paul from your analysis of presidential candidates is very disapointing. On the merits of his positions alone he's newsworthy. What do you have to fear from a man who has always upheld his oath to defend your Constitutional 1st Amendment rights?

Sincerely,
Jeff Hammond

I sent Ms. Hunter a couple short emails and got the "canned" response.

I think Tancredo has more Iowa visits because he can't actually afford plane tickets....

Reading the comments to her editorial really reinforced my belief that RP is catchin' on. The wrath of the REV cannot be overestimated!

Wonder if the Iowa voters won't notice this blatant blackout.

The Register's credibility could be on the line here.

Liberty and Freedom are a beacon; not a bullet.

Ms. Hunter,

You know full well about Ron Paul and hismassive support so it would be intellectually honest to feature him in your future analysis. Yeah, the U.S. is not DPRK or Communist China so its OK not to be biased. However, continue to ignore him if for some reason you have a political agenda or viewpoint to promote. If so, Ron Paul supporters will shine light on it and beam rational response around the globe via the net. That is how it works these days...

With the amount of noise and stir the Paul campaign is generating (especially compared to Tancredo, Hunter), this is not just a mere oversight...this is a calculated move to understate his actual support. No "informed" analysis can justify ignoring him now. Maybe a month ago but certainly not now! Bad form Ms. Hunter.

--SOB--

I found it extremely interesting that the editorial staff felt they had to "justify" which candidates they selected - specifically the selection of Tancredo over Ron Paul. Feeling a little guilty, perhaps?

I wrote a short and nice note.

They are wrong to do that.

Dear Miss Hunter:

I am sure you're a nice lady who has a talent for writing and puts worth in your work and respect for your paycheck. But, your paper is owned by Gannet, a conglomerate based in McClean, VA and headed by an elite, powergrabbing force that wants to stay just where they are, in power.

So, my question is: Is it your judgement to leave Dr. Ron Paul off of your "survey", or was the criteria for judgement set by McClean?

Consider this:

http://www.infiniteronpaul.com/meetupmaps/

(name)

You would think that by now people would be getting the idea....
-----------------------------------
Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.--George Washington, 1779