Ron Paul in this Sunday's NY Times Magazine

Comment viewing options

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

Thanks Sly Superspy

What a ride reading that was. Felt bile in my throat when I got to the part about thin to the point of gaunt and polite to the point of dainty (same way I feel when I read pint-sized).

Beyond that little piece of immature writing was some fine writing. I found it very interesting and even learned some things. All in all, it presents a picture of an exceptionally nice man and family (not the "made-up" kind we've been fed
in the past, paints the picture of someone who cares deeply about the country and can take a stand (also unusual in this world of politics). At first I took issue with the self-educated part as though it was a dig. Changed my mind, in the world of a non-reading President, it was a compliment that then later defined itself as a compliment with other things said. Ron Paul came off as an intellectual, a thinker, a doer.

No, it was hardly an endorsement. It was incorrect in some major areas. It marginalized Ron Paul in some ways. It ended saying he didn't have a chance. However, it was the New York Times and it will create interest and it is good exposure. I think he did us a favor. Wouldn't it be interesting to know his attitude toward Ron Paul before his article and then after he had done his interviews and research. I call this a turning point...an upswing in print media just like the article I posted a few minutes ago in the Economist.

And, just how many people fit into the category he described that are attracted to Ron Paul. Most people are not happy with much of anything about our country, its policies, its leaders. I liked it.

fonta

The intro to this article...

I hope it's just a hook to get people to read it. Because that description certainly is somewhat misleading.
-Phil Hemingway III

Drug legalization and

Drug legalization and medicare aren't immediate targets of Ron's campaign. He has stated this numerous times. His personal stance on abortion is also irrelevant, as he has said he would allow states to make the decision. Why not mention the planks of his campaign, rather than these hot-button issues?

I can tell this is shaping up to be a GREAT article!