Open Letter to Allen Wastler, Managing Editor, CNBC.com

Dear Mr. Wastler,

Thank you for the explanation of why you took down your post-debate CNBC poll. As the founder and editor of the DailyPaul.com, the largest and most popular Ron Paul blog on the Internet today, I feel it is my duty to respond.

Your letter was polite, informative and revealing, not only for what it says, but primarily for what it does not. As you mention, Ron Paul supporters are indeed a force to be reckoned with, in the spirit of Samuel Adams:

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

Ron Paul supporters are that tireless minority. As you are certainly well aware, Dr. Paul has the most supporters on social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, leads in the number of YouTube video views, has the most Meetup groups and members, as well as the most volunteers of any candidacy of either party. His official campaign website is more popular than any of the so-called GOP "front runners." Heck, my little Ron Paul blog - run from the kitchen table of my suburban Boston home - is more popular than any of the official websites of the other so-called GOP frontrunners based on data from Alexa.com.

Given the evidence, continuing to maintain that this phenomena is based on "spamming" or "hacking" by a few active supporters calls into question the competency of your judgment and that of your news gathering organization. This tired explanation might still play well to those who are used to getting information spoon-fed from major media outlets, but as the Internet grows, the size of that audience segment is shrinking fast.

If it there were truly only a "few" Ron Paul supporters, how can you possibly explain the massive turnout of supporters - in the flesh - at Ron Paul rallies across the country? Dr. Paul was greeted by over 1,000 at rallies in Seattle and Salt Lake City, as well as 2,500 in Michigan after your very own CNBC debate! I don't know of any other candidate that draws those kinds of crowds, yet such events receive nary a mention in the mainstream media (MSM). It is no wonder that Americans' trust in the MSM is eroding.

The 20,000 daily visitors to my website are most certainly real people. While this number may be small potatoes compared to the traffic that CNBC.com receives, it is likely that many of the votes cast in your poll came from links on the Daily Paul. But I find that it stretches the limits of credibility to believe that a website as large as yours, with its army of dedicated programmers and staff, would find itself vulnerable to what you describe as "hackers."

Your statement that Ron Paul was a "dynamic presence throughout the debate," is kind but only half true. It was true when he was given the opportunity to speak, which unfortunately was not often. As these statistics show, your organization gave Dr. Paul the least amount of speaking time, and the fewest number of questions during the debate. He was given only 7 questions to Giuliani and Thomson's 18 each, and given just over five minutes of speaking time compared to Giuliani and Thomson's 14:00.

Once again, I'd like to thank you for your letter, but sadly most Ron Paul supporters feel that you miss the point entirely. "Congratulations," you say. "You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that."

It is not that we are "well organized." In fact, there is practically no central organization of the various Ron Paul groups that are scattered across the country. We are a diverse collection of individuals who have found Dr. Paul and who act independently based on our beliefs and convictions. From your vaunted perspective, it must look like we an organized mob, but that is your fundamental misunderstanding. There was no organized "plot" to overrun the MSNBC poll. It was simply thousands of individuals - nearly all of whom, I assure you, watched the debate in utter frustration - who each decided to participate in one of the sadly few remaining avenues of direct democracy left in this country - an internet poll. But you decided to take away even this lousy little venue.

You also say that, "In the end, [internet polls] are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question."

If you were attempting to "engage the reader and take a quick temperature of [the] audience," then I think we all found out what the temperature is: Hot - very hot. Too hot, apparently, for your liking. The number of Ron Paul supporters showing up at rallies across the country demonstrates beyond any doubt that Dr. Paul has in excess of the number of supporters that voted in your poll. There is no reason to think that the poll was "hacked."

If I wasn't clear the first time, let me say it again: It is laughable that a large, well financed website such as CNBC with its army of programmers would leave itself vulnerable to being "hacked" by the general public. Either your programmers are incompetent, or you are making a convenient excuse that you hope will fly with the majority of casual computer users who have only the vaguest understanding of what the term "hacking" means. You may be able to fool them, but you certainly can't fool me.

If the so-called supporters of other candidates cannot overcome their apathy and lethargy long enough to register a single mouse click in your little poll, then that too is telling of the "temperature" of the audience. The other candidates, reciting rehearsed platitudes and recycling tired old ideas are lukewarm at best and impotent when it comes to inspiring the American people. But by removing your poll, you are aiding in the suppression of this very important information.

A real news organization would certainly be curious about the reasons behind Ron Paul's lopsided, runaway victory. A real news organization would certainly do some investigative work to get to the bottom of the story. Instead, you accuse Ron Paul's supporters of "ruining the poll," and make unsubstantiated claims of "hacking."

How can you so confidently state that the poll was no longer an "honest show of hands?" Did multiple votes come from the same IP address? Is there evidence of some type of nefarious infiltration of your system? Have you contacted the FBI? Hacking, after all, is a crime. If so, please let us know - we are just as interested in accurate news and in preventing such behavior as you are. If not how can you possibly make such a claim and remain a reputable news organization?

As one blogger put it (much better and more succinctly than I can),

To put up a poll where the respondents are self-selected and then attack it because it fails to mirror the results of polls where the respondents are not self-selected is just dumb.

Yes, in the end, it is just dumb. There are a variety of reasons that Dr. Paul is not pulling large numbers in, as you call them, "legit" polls (your quotes). In many cases, his name is not even included.

I realize that it may be inconceivable for an executive of your position and stature to understand just what is going on here, but that is understandable. A very real shift is taking place. People - especially young people, who make up such a large part of Ron Paul's support - have less and less confidence in the mainstream news media. Keith Olbermann's post-debate commentary that deliberately excluded Ron Paul as the only anti-war Republican, and stunts like this one demonstrate why trust in organizations such as yours is crumbling.

Instead of leaving the poll results up that show overwhelming support for Ron Paul, you chose to take them down. You justified this by saying "It certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp."

But leaving these statistics up for all to see would of course be a service to your readers. It would let them know that there is a group of Americans - people just like them - who are distressed and dissatisfied with the current crop of media anointed "leaders" and who have found a candidate that truly speaks for them. However, I don't think that you are interested in serving your readers, the American people. Instead, it appears that you are more interested in serving your advertisers and preserving the status quo. It is clear to most Ron Paul supporters that the mainstream media has already selected its winners. These winners were not chosen because they are the best for the American people, but because they are the best for the corporate media and its corporate constituents.

Ron Paul supporters have long known that the only way to gain media attention for our cause is by growing our own grassroots efforts, and setting our own brush fires that become so large that they cannot be ignored. Thank you for once again reminding of this with your actions and your letter of explanation. It helps to clarify what we are up against, to focus our actions, and inspire us to work harder and contribute more. It also most certainly it hastens the speed with which we abandon mainstream media outlets such as yours.

With that, allow me to leave you with another quote from Samuel Adams that to me seems strangely appropriate.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us
in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

Sincerely,
Michael Nystrom
Editor
www.dailypaul.com



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

great letter

Thanks for that great letter. I just got through sending Mr. Harwood one as well. Truth is though, I don't think they get it or are capable of getting it.

Oh well. I recently got laid off from one of my two jobs; the project ended. I'm still sending Dr. Paul $25 today. I'm also going to sell cans and send the money to the good doctor.

Fight on.

Great

Michael, that is a great letter and the Sam Adams quote to finish is the icing on a delicious cake.

WE'RE MAKING HISTORY

Wish I could peer into the future to see how our descendents react while reading these "open letters" in their History books. I hope they appreciate what we were up against and how hard we fought our generation's battle to restore liberty.

I imagine that our "chapter" in the History books might be called "Citizens Become Aware of and React to Media Manipulation."

WOW!!!

I am a grandma for RON PAUL, registered Republican and meetup member. In my day:):) this letter would get a "right on" "neat-o" and maybe a few "cool man". I am so proud of the work you are doing and I encourage you to continue and stay strong. Your parents have to be smiling. We must keep praying for and working for the next President of the United States---RON PAUL.
Much aloha and mahalo

Dr. Paul 2008

Thanks for Doing So Much For Our Revolution

Michael, My deepest gratitude to you for doing so much in spreading the message of our RP Revolution. You are a true patriot. And by the way, great letter. I too loved the last quote by Sam Adams. It really hits home hard. Angain, thanks!

Anthony Wade Op Ed News.com

Anthony Wade at Op Ed News.com put together another response to CNBC's making the poll disappear. Now we have to go beyond Wasler and get this informtion out to the general public. CNBC is a total disgrace to the Communications Industry.

Wade's piece was great journalism. If somebody in the mainstream press took the time to investigate the bias in the news and punches it hard they have the makings of a great Pulister? Prize winning story. Big time
writing could totally discredit how we are being force fed MSM lies..

I don't get it either

The "legit" pols preselect a group of people who have access to a telephone landline. The internet pols preselect a group of people who have access to the internet. He wanted a "show of hands". He got a "show of hands".

We didn't organize to have peope go to his site. The people interested in Ron Paul ended up on their site for the very reason they wanted. Ron Paul's supporters wanted to raise hands more than anyone else...

We’re Not Playing Fair! :- (

Not sure if anyone already mentioned this, so I will (maybe repeating).

We are just not playing the CNBC (MSM) Polling game fairly. The whole purpose of their poll was to show how the chosen candidates won this debate. But the audacious and diabolical Ron Paul supporters screwed everything up, again!. That’s why they took the poll down and discarded it. It simply did not show the results they wanted. It just didn’t fit their game plan.

Of course if Giuliani, Romney or even McCain or Thompson had won the poll, we would not hear the end of it! There would have been continuous references to their successful showing and the inevitability of their winning the election; See, these poll results prove it!

They also could not afford to have another call-in vote, knowing that they would lose again for everyone watching to see as in all the other call-in polls. We’ve already taken that propaganda weapon away from them.

By the way, I wonder how many single computer households have 2 or more potential voters that could not vote in these IP controlled polls. So my good and motivated friends keep up the good work and continue to ruin their plans all the way to the primaries and beyond.

Best Regards,
Anti-Stupid

So PUT THE POLL BACK UP!

If Harwood is so "contrite" and admits his mistake, then they should correct their mistake and put the poll back up!!!

CNBC’s Pulled Paul Poll

From:http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy125.html

"...Now most of what I’m going to say is obvious, but when something this asinine occurs, people need to state the obvious. So a few observations:

It seems that Wastler’s main objection is that the online poll became misleading, since it didn’t match up with the scientifically conducted random surveys. But why bother running the online poll at all, then? Why not just reproduce the results of these "legit" polls?

Wastler says the insidious Ron Paul fans hijacked the poll in order to use it as a platform "for beating the Ron Paul drum." But note that this drum beating consisted of nothing more than truthfully answering the question the poll asked. CNBC wanted the people visiting the page to say who won the debate, and that’s exactly what the Ron Paul visitors did. They didn’t somehow embed links to the Ron Paul campaign site. Let me put it this way: Suppose someone who honestly thought Ron Paul won the debate wanted to participate in the survey. How could this person have done otherwise than by "beating the Ron Paul drum"?

By all means, let’s explore this "show of hands" analogy. What Wastler is complaining about is that, in a giant conference room of 300 million people, a higher percentage of Ron Paul supporters raised their hands than did the supporters of the other candidates. So that when Wastler counted up the hands in the air, he got "phony" results. Well whose fault is that? Sure, if a Ron Paul fan raised both hands (the equivalent of hacking the CNBC poll and registering more than one vote per person), that would be cheating. But Ron Paul supporters aren’t to blame if the other candidates are so blah that their own proponents don’t bother voting for them.

This really gets to the heart of the matter. It’s not as if the CNBC poll was something new. Ron Paul has been winning online (and cell phone) polls for months. Rather than whining about how "unfair" this is, why don’t the other campaigns adopt similar tactics? Why don’t they set up websites pointing Giuliani, Romney, etc. supporters to these polls, to boost their candidates’ numbers? The answer, of course, isn’t that these other politicians are above such underhanded methods. Rather, the answer is that there are a lot more Ron Paul fans who are that dedicated to organizing and voting in such polls.

The most Kafkaesque portion in Wastler’s letter is when he objects that his poll was the subject of "a campaign." It gets even worse, Mr. Wastler. These Ron Paul freaks are actually stockpiling millions of dollars, and they’re going to spend them in…words fail me…a campaign, if you will, seeking to influence the democratic process in this country! They’re going to try to get their preferred man elected, even though general polls show him in the minority!

In all seriousness, Wastler’s letter made me realize with alarm that if Ron Paul does too well in the initial primaries, the rulers might try to throw out the results. A month ago I was just hoping that Ron Paul would come in at least third place, with at least 10 percent of the vote, in the first primary or two. But now I’m almost worried. Suppose he came in first place with 35 percent of the vote? And suppose thousands of those votes were cast by people who had just switched their party affiliation within the last few months? Would the establishment claim that this was "hijacking" of the GOP by liberal Democrats? I really think that the Ron Paul people should immediately get a statement on this issue, in writing, from the appropriate GOP people in the various states. In other words, have those people go on record before the results, saying that first-time primary voters (who have followed all of the rules) are perfectly legitimate.

It’s really going to be interesting if Ron Paul wins the first primary. His campaign right now is doing a fabulous job of making that a real possibility. I just hope they’re also looking into ways of defusing the possible routes through which the GOP will try to throw out the results. In this respect, Wastler’s decision, and holier than thou explanation, are a good case study.

October 13, 2007 by Bob Murphy
"

Voter Apathy - Ron Paul

Dear Mr. Harwood,

As you are aware, voter apathy is a rampant problem in this country. Now it is apparent that this problem exists with the viewers of CNBC as well. This is with exception of the tireless Ron Paul supporters. I suppose that after the primary election, dedicated Ron Paul supporters will be informed that they invalidated the “democratic” election process, you refer to, because they shook off their apathy and made sure they got off of the couch and made their way to the election polls.

The real story behind the poll numbers and the on-line poll that CNBC chose to remove as a result of Ron Paul winning by such a wide margin is really about how a non-apathetic block of voters can change the course of history. Leaving your poll numbers online should serve to remind the supporters of other candidates that the Ron Paul Campaign is real. The Ron Paul voters will not be at home during the primaries watching history on CNBC they will be at the polls making history.

Your other comment that Ron Paul will never be elected because his views are “out of step with the mainstream sentiment” are incredulous and unfounded. In a recent article by the “unbiased” USAElctionPolls http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-name-... they stated that “Ron Paul Resonates Best with the American Public According to the Polls.” The article states:

Ron Paul is starting to find favor from dissatisfied American voters that want change and a return to Constitutional principles says USAElectionPolls.com.

According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post Poll, 64% of adults disapprove with how the federal budget deficit is being handled. Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget and has been one of the leading advocates against the Federal Reserve and printing of money.

52% of adults feel that Democrats are better at handling the federal deficit. Ron Paul is trying to bring fiscal responsibility back to the Republican party.

According to Gallup's August poll of 1019 adults nationwide, 60% of Americans approve of labor unions and as Ron Paul stated at the CNBC debate, the right to organize is a basic right derived from the Constitution.

ABC News Polls show that 67% of Americans think the government is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming to the United States. Ron Paul has been the leading critic of our Iraq war policy and how the United States sent our border guards to fight.

Ron Paul has been the strongest supporter of the 2nd amendment, our right to bear arms and as the latest Gallup poll shows, the percentage of adults that want stricter gun laws dropped from a high of 66% a bit before 9/11 to 51% when they polled adults October 4th through the 7th this year. Stricter gun laws had the favor of 78% of those polled in 1990.

And most importantly, Ron Paul has been highly critical of the Iraq war. 70% are dissatisfied with the war as it is being fought right now.

Ron Paul resonates well between both parties because he derives his philosophies from the Constitution - the document that brings America together.

Likely some Ron Paul supporters turned to CNBC with hope of some fair coverage. Maybe some of your regular viewers are part of the mainstream America referred to above. They found Ron Paul’s message to resonate well with their current thoughts and decided to vote for Ron Paul. If 1 of your regular viewers participated in this poll that you removed, you have done them a disservice by wasting their time, by asking them to vote, and by discrediting your own poll. If CNBC wants to improve its ratings maybe your colleagues should look at your own polls, the polls quoted above and understand that giving Ron Paul equal coverage and air time is what America really wants to see and hear.

Regards,

-Will Pitts

Wow!! Impressive Michael. Thank you!

That was a great read. Inspiring! I especially liked your last Samuel Adams quote. I had never seen that one before.

fight4liberty

Letter to Mr. Harwood

My letter to Mr. Harwood:

Mr.Harwood,
I completely disagree that Ron Paul is out of step with the "mainstream sentiment of the party he is running with" as you put it. I am a registered Republican, and have been since 1982. I have never voted outside of the party and consider myself a very conservative Republican.

I cannot argue that Dr. Paul has been ignored and/or vilified by the Republican television pundits, but this in no way reflects the effect he has had on the people (remember us? the voters) belonging to the Republican party. Myself, and at least 30 of my friends and family have become supporters of Dr. Paul, and we are all members of the Rep. party.

In my memory, there has not been a single occasion of this group of friends and family reaching a consensus on who we support. Until now. Dr. Paul has appealed to each of us in different ways, but sufficient to bring together a disparate group of Republicans and we are firmly behind him.

I would instead, suggest that the Republican pundits are out of step with the wishes of the voting members of the Republican party itself. Perhaps it is the people you should be listening to rather than the television personalities.

I believe your own polls reflect the truth of these statements.

Best Regards,
my name
address

NOW LETS HOPE YOUR WEBSITE DOESNT GET HACKED!

I have to give you two thumbs up for a great letter and the nerve to do it! Why??, because since CNBC *does* have some great computer experts working for them (which is why THEY cant be hacked), I can just see this guy going to the techs and saying, I want revenge. Hope your website stays up and suddenly doesnt disappear!
p.s. I'm not kidding...
pps. I am happy to report that after getting mad at CNBC I have maxed out my contribution limit. You folks are going to have to continue to do your part and make the media sit up and take notice. Isnt it a shame that only money can do that after all? What a shame but money DOES talk!

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you all

Thank you all for reading my letter, and the encouraging responses.

I got some good news from the campaign - they're going to use my "I support Ron Paul" graphics on official t-shirts and pins.

Now let's donate some money! I'm pretty close to maxing out my donations, but I'm going to start in with my wife's portion! Ron Paul has said it now many time - he's not considering a run as a 3rd Party. So this is it!!! This is our big shot. Let's not waste it!

Michael

He's the man.

Its about time you got back

Its about time you got back to work... :o).. I know, I know.. you were out of town.. Welcome back.

Tim
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/1040/

Funding Paul's campaign

Manystrom: "Now let's donate some money! I'm pretty close to maxing out my donations, but I'm going to start in with my wife's portion! Ron Paul has said it now many time - he's not considering a run as a 3rd Party. So this is it!!! This is our big shot. Let's not waste it!"

I would like to add that I was at Paul's NYC private meeting last night and he stated unequivocally that he would not request matching funds, which he called "stolen money".

So the only money he's going to get is coming from people like us who actually support him. Don't let him down!

Good piece

.
Hope he reads it. Even if he doesn't Michael is on the record and it's good reply.

John Harwood's Response

John Harwood's response reveals more that I think he meant to reveal and I quote:

"In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent."

"He lacks the support needed to win the GOP nomination, and would even if the media covered him as heavily as we cover Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because Paul's views--respectable, well-articulated and sincerely held as they are--are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in." ANGRY YET?

Ron Paul is probably the purest Conserative that you can find in ALL of Congress. We should all be scared to death of John Harwood's and his cronies idea that a true Republican Conservative like Ron Paul is not mainstream, in otherwords NOT a neo-con. This is what we are up against...personally I don't have another word to say to CNBC except that their position is to destroy the lower and middleclass of this great country and that now true patriots know what kind of evil we are really up against. We need to do everything in our power to fight for Ron Paul, get him elected and save this country.

"Evil can prevail ONLY if good men remain silent"

Hear! Hear!

I couldn't have said it better myself - even though I wrote him a letter almost equal in length!

Now, pardon me, I must go make a donation!!

What's Our Limit?

I sent an email to the Editor asking at what % they will remove Dr. Paul from the polls. If I get an answer I'll post it so we can make sure we don't go above it and thus keep the poll legit.

2% Maximum

He says that 2% is what he's getting in "scientific" polls so that's all that he should get in this online poll.

Ron Paul Would Win If They Paid Attention

He said Ron Paul has no chance of winning but here's proof if people hear about Ron Paul they will vote for him.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-name-...

Thank you so much for

Thank you so much for writing this response to CNBC. I wanted to write such a letter, but my literary skills are not as great as yours. I give so much thanks that people like you are on our side. We will prevail. Keep the faith.

"Better to be flexible like bamboo than rigid like oak, for when the storm comes bamboo will bend and survive, where as oak will crack and die." -bambooduh

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman

Why CNBC Keep Insisting on Useless "Scientific" Polls?

A fact against following CNBC argument:

"...To be clear: I believe that Ron Paul's chances of winning the presidency are no greater than my own, which is to say zero. When he ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for president in 1988, he drew fewer than a half-million votes. In last week's Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll of Republican primary voters--which IS a scientific poll with a four percentage point margin for error--Paul drew two percent. ..."

Kerry was polling 4% in CBS Poll in Dec/2003 and Dean 23%! Who was nominated???

"CBS News Poll, December 14-16, 2003
Dean - 23%
Clark - 10%
Lieberman - 10%
Gephardt - 6%
Sharpton - 5%
Kerry - 4%
Edwards - 2%

The week before Iowa the caucuses:
Dean - 20%
Clark - 13%
Lieberman - 8%
Gephardt - 7%
Kerry - 7%

Now, taken two days after Kerry wins Iowa and before the New Hampshire primaries, these are what the national numbers were:
Kerry - 29%
Dean - 17%
Edwards - 13%
Clark -11%
Lieberman - 5%

that same poll taken just after Iowa and New Hampshire:
Kerry - 53%
Dean - 8%
Edwards - 7%
Sharpton - 4%"

Source: http://race42008.com/2007/07/05/why-national-primary-polls-d...

Good article explaining "scientific polls": http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html

A Couple Points

His primary concern with the validity of the poll is not that it has been hacked but that we are organized and that we post links on our blogs/forums to push people to the poll. This in essence does not, in his opinion, reflect the feelings of those who "Actually" watched the debate.... Which is PLAIN WRONG. Every Ron Paul supporter I know was glued to the tube. His Assumption is wrong.

MY QUESTION IS:

If we are able to push people to the online polls, why aren't the other candidates able to do it? Answer: because a large percentage of their "supporters" are only supporters because of name recognition not because they really care about the candidates issues.

Another question;If we are able to rally people to vote in polls, what do you think is going to happen in the primaries?... and don't give me that crap that internet people will never go vote... I am an "internet person" and i SURE AS HELL will be voting in the primaries.

I can also assure you that everyone I know will be at the polls with me. And many of them are first time voters....

I just sent the following

I just sent the following response to John:

Dear Mr. Harwood,

Let me start off by saying thank you for posting your letter.

While I do not agree with your opinion that Ron Paul’s chances of winning the nomination are zero, I do appreciate your forthrightness about it not being correct to remove a poll just because CNBC did not like the results.

Let me point out a couple of the BIG differences between now and 1988:

-The internet and its ability to create and organize a massive amount of volunteers (40k+ so far). Not to mention cash.

- 20 years of Ron Paul slowly building a hard core following, that is now being utilized in full force.

- Running as a Republican will make it easier for Ron to get included in debates and on ballots.

More polite than me

That's more polite than me. I gave him a tutorial on how phone polls work and told him he was emboldening the terrorists by not supporting the troops, a majority of which that donated, donated to Dr. Paul's campaign.

Its good, but....

all in all it is actually excellent. however towards the end you sort of let the genie out of the bag and suddenly you turn from concerned and capable leader with a large following into a extremist tin hat.

If you look at it from the businesses pov, you are trying to move them to correct their actions, and a certain amount of anger is expected and needed. But once a letter starts saying thngs like this:
"... It is clear to most Ron Paul supporters that the mainstream media has already selected its winners. These winners were not chosen because they are the best for the American people, but because they are the best for the corporate media and its corporate constituents. "
you cross the line into not business. not business = personal = not having to pay attention.
Thank you for you excellent efforts though, and I hope and pray I'm wrong. It is an excelently well written letter of discontent!

..
Gimme a T-bone! http://www.dailypaul.com/node/51102
"You had me at Ron Paul"

http://gronga.wordpress.com/

Spam. It's all me.

I sent a letter as well with pretty much the same reasoning. They complain about us being so vocal, but at the same time they do these kind of things that make us feel we have to be more vocal.

BTW all of the prior posts on this topic are from me. I have like 220 usernames on dailypaul.

Please update if you get a response

Thank you for putting a reasoned and complete analysis into eloquent words.

I am particularly pleased that you refuted the CNBC assertion that the poll results were the result of an organized campaign. In fact, as you point out, the Ron Paul phenomenon is a remarkable exhibition of SPONTANEOUS ORDER which of course is an underpinning of free markets and the freedom philosophy.

Please update if you get a response with any substance. I would be very surprised if you do.

We are starting to tickle the sleeping Dragon's tail. Watch out when he wakes up.

Thank you Mike!

You know this is just like on September 5th when pollster Frank Luntz turned to us in the focus group as we watched the cell phone poll go 33% in Ron's favor and said:

"They should never take internet or cell phone polls — it just screws things up..."

Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers

Perfect Response

Great response. Let us all know if he responds.

Excellent Response

Great letter, I also fired off a similarly themed email, although it probably got filtered to his trash.

In the words of Jeff Spicoli...

AWESOME! TOTALLY AWESOME!

.

.

MSM and Internet

Shame on us for being organized, motivated and effective!

The truth is, the internet is the last vestige of communications freedom so it is fitting that we are stongest in that domain. I just hope and pray that the lousy polling numbers in the "official polls" are due to the antiquated methods and the candidates that they make available as "acceptable responses" to said polls."

We have to keep pressing on and putting the pressure on the MSM. I think the strong fundraising numbers did WONDERS for that and we need to replicate that performance twofold for Q4.

great letter

hope they read it

Validating the polls

I’ve put up an online petition with the express goal of laying to bed this particular line of FUD. Anyone who votes for Ron Paul in online polls is encouraged to sign this petition to demonstrate that they are a single, real individual.

When/if it hits six thousand signatures, I’ll email it to CNBC.

http://www.petitiononline.com/rpverify/petition.html

concerned supporter

Please take a look at the names on the petition. Many are signing numerous times, and with false names like Osama, Hillary, etc.

Technical problem

I inadvertently clicked "approve signature" a second time before leaving the petition so my name appears twice. (I know thats too funny, I didn't mean to, I'm just a Larry David kind of guy).

Maybe you could add a mechanism to prevent same thing happening to someone else. Also, a lot of garbage comments are appearing as signatures, need a way to purge & prevent.

re: Technical problem

Frankly I'm finding it hilarious that this petition is being attacked by anti-Paul spammers... but the good signatures still outnumber the bad! It doesn't look like there's any real method of policing the signatures (especially since there was no option for me to require that email addresses were visible to even just the poll organizer). However, the fake ones are pretty damn obvious. It won't be difficult to find the approximate phony rate, and just aim that much higher for the final signature count.

Signed

Been signed by my, good luck

Thanks!

Thanks for putting into words what many of us in the Ron Paul revolution are feeling. This is a great letter that should be read by every Ron Paul supporter.

Jason Rink is the Executive Director of the Foundation for a Free Society. He is the the producer and director of Nullification: The Rightful Remedy, and the author of “Ron Paul: Father of the Tea Party” the biography of Congressman Ron Paul.

POWERFUL

Powerful letter and Samuel Adams Quote.

Kent

Beautifully written

Sadly though, I think this Wastler guy had the web admins re-route all Ron Paul-related e-mails to the virtual trash can after he posted that sad piece of excuse.
Only way I would advocate anyone to get in contact with that guy is by PRINTING and PHYSICALLY mailing him a letter.
When it really matters, old fashioned still wins in this modern era of disposable text.

yes, but...

Sadly, you may be correct.... However, this letter is the kind of inspiration that fires people up. It is beautifully written and amazingly accurately expresses my feelings, and most likely many others.

We must be angry about this, but direct our anger to further spread the word. It's up to us, and we've shown that we can do it. More signs, bumper stickers, flyers, and money!