Time Magazine article: "The Ron Paul Revolution"

A good way to react to provocation of this sort is to stay on message. Why do we support Ron Paul's campaign?

A few reminders:

1. Restore the Constitution
2. Protect individual privacy and individual liberty
3. End the occupation of Iraq
4. Back up the US dollar with gold and silver
5. Oppose the North American Union
6. Defend our borders and our sovereignty
7. Limit the size and scope of government

What I would like to say to Luntz about us being crabgrass can't be printed here...but you get the picture!

Better yet Mel Gibson's dad, a very religious person, supports Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphTr8W9OnA

The last two paragraphs of the story are pure drivel. My least favorite line is "The one place Paul hasn't become a major player is where it counts: in the polls..." Last I looked, the polls don't count; the ballot box does.

Support our republic and the liberty it provides - Todd

I found this article pretty insulting, so I wrote this letter:

"Paul's fans are entranced by a man who responds to surprising information with "Wowee" and a
jaw-dropped smile not often seen apart from 5-year-old boys and Muppets"

I thought this quote epitomized an article where you engaged in outright ridicule of Ron Paul, and everyone who supported him.

Why don't you examine the merit of his ideas rather than belittling his smile? Perhaps, rather than just being weird, many Americans are refreshed by Paul's honesty and the consistency with which he has held his principles during his tenure in congress.

To give one example:
Before the Iraq war Paul voted against the resolution to authorize the President, citing that Iraq was not the threat that Bush was claiming, and that the war was possibly going to be far costlier and far longer than anticipated.

4 years, 3,700 lives, and 500 billion dollars into the war all of Paul's predictions have come true. Over the course of those 4 years he has continued to speak against the war and vote against the funding that allows it to continue.

Meanwhile the Democrats, who claim to provide an alternative on Iraq, all voted for the war resolution and continue to vote for its funding, while not committing to withdrawing during their presidency.

On Iraq, it appears to Paul supporters that he is not a "nerd" but a sage leader who predicted the outcome of a bad decision and worked to prevent it. Meanwhile the Democrats appear to be crass politicians who voted for the war when it was popular, vote for the funding to avoid looking bad, and take advantage of anti war sentiment without actually doing or committing to do anything.

There are enough similar examples of his virtues to fill many letters, but I will spare your time.

Disagreeing with Paul is one thing, but an entire article of name calling, nerd, crab grass, muppet, nuts, etc. is just insulting, and I think reflects poorly on your character.

Had I put the intellectual effort into this reply that you used in your article, I would have have paraphrased Frank Lutz and simply wrote:

'Hey, Joel Stein, f____ you.'

I sometimes wonder if any of these "journalists" may like RP's message, but have to undercut it in the story to keep their jobs... they make some good comments & get some of RPs position points out, but then throw the jabs in. Maybe they have to, to make it appear like an attack to the head honchos, but at the same time getting some positive points across.

I just can't imagine that so many journalists can be against liberty and freedom! (or that ignorant, either)

Re: The Ron Paul Revolution (Joel Stein/Nov 1, 2007)

It's certainly a world turned upside down when candidates who give cookie-cutter, poll-driven responses during debates are "nuanced," but Ron Paul's straight-forward, educated responses are "nerdy." Somehow, the implication is that we Paul supporters are smart, but just too impractical or inexperience for the real world. Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution is just too anachronistic for the "cool" kids, and we should just go back to our physics books and let you run our lives for us. We can rest assured that the "cool" kids will use their power wisely, and all that is required of us is that we give up our liberty.

However, maybe the nerds are trying to save the cool kids from themselves. It's just possible that the Constitution was a pretty good idea after all. I know that I'll side with nerds and liberty any day over being "cool" like Mr. Stein.

be boycotting hit pieces... The first page was bad enough, but the second page made it clear that it was a hit piece beyond doubt...

WE are the ones that end up boosting ratings on these pieces of garbage... let's not do that,.... don't bother clicking on the above...