Sunday NYT Article on Ron Paul -- Full Text

Before heading south intellectually, consider that this mention is very good. I, personally, am thrilled. Today's daily update says:

http://www.cfr.org/about/newsletters/editorial_detail.html?i...
*

CAMPAIGN 2008: Silence Meets Censure Threat

On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) announced he will introduce a new resolution to censure President Bush for his behavior leading up to and during the Iraq war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) downplayed the measure and thus far no presidential candidate has thrown support behind Feingold's measure.

The New York Times Magazine profiles Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), the lone anti-war Republican presidential candidate whose contrarian campaign has won a somewhat unwieldy base of adherents.

The article then links to the NYT article and the absolutely enormous group of people who regularly read this (CFR newsletter) all over the world will read all the great things said about Dr. Paul in the Times article. Having said that, consider definitions of the two "triggers" in the CFR blurb:

Contrarian definied: Philosophically, a contrarian is a person who tends to take positions that openly challenge conventional wisdom. In finance a contrarian takes the view that widespread pessimism tends to lead to market rallies and that widespread optimism tends to lead to market slumps.

Contrarians are sometimes thought of as perma-bears—market participants who are permanently biased to a bear market view. However, the contrarian is not biased specifically towards a negative view of the price trend in a market, but rather takes a contrary position to the prevailing crowd's view, whether that view is positive or negative.

In Sociology, the term can be understood as an attitude of going against the establishment in terms of the social mores of the time. A social contrarian attempts to show to others, like Socrates through Plato, that there is something inherently wrong with their limited world view. (In the light of this definition, aren't we glad to be a part of a "contrarian campaign" as a change is needed.)

Next "unwieldy" defined: Difficult to carry or manage because of size, shape, weight,..... (In light of this definition, could we say otherwise? The issues are weighty...complex...the group attracted to it are across the board. And, if anyone traces this back to the NYT article and mention of "fringe" then let me once again point out that "that" quote came from within our group, not outside it.)

Dr. Paul recently said of the CRF," I have not been invited to join." If you look at past and present members of the larger, lower tier membership, it immediately becomes apparent just why it is considered an honor to be invited to join this "August" group....it is a virtual Who's Who in many areas. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Bill Moyer was once a member. I believe that the origin, history and upper tier of the CFR should and can be placed in the same category as Shriners and Masons who on the local level do incredibly wonderful things to help charities, most notably to me as I have a personal experience with it, the Shriner's Childrens' Burn Center. We do not know all the variance of opinion that might exist at the top level of any of these groups. And, the times they are a changin'.

My husband subscribes to the CFR newletters...that's how I found today's blurb. We both find it extremely informative. Sometimes we agree with articles and often we disagree. That is how we try to inform ourselves. And, that is indicative of the setting in which creative dialogue becomes possible.

I hope this comment does not draw negative comments about the CFR...(we have all read the negative links )....as that would be counterproductive as we enter this new stage of increasing the choir membership and bringing in new voices. A great symphonic choir includes all manner of sopranos, altos, basses. The mere diversity brings clarity and powerful harmony. WE have turned the corner and need to drop "My way or the highway" and, instead, look at the positive side of Ron Paul print. This is absolutely fantastic, IMO. There are MANY readers all over the world who read this newsletter who would not otherwise read all the great info contained in the NYT's article....and most of these people can and do read "all" of lengthy articles.

Let us never be guilty of "shooting the messenger" ...in this case the CFR newsletter. It is the message that is important, not the medium. The medium IS NOT the message. In this case, given CFR readership, the medium may indeed lend credence to the message.

The biggest obstacle for the Ron Paul campaign at this point is that a lot of individuals (especially those reading MSM media print such as the NYT) don't know who Paul is. This article was for the most part a pretty fair representation of what Ron Paul stands for. I do think that if we get caught up in a single quote from the article then we are missing the bigger picture. That being there will be a huge number of people read this article who previously have never heard of Ron Paul and his campaign. It is hypocritical of us to bash an article in the MSM and then continue to expect that media to want to continue giving Ron Paul publicity. All press is good press and tomorrow there will be thousands of people who will if nothing else learn that there is a man named Ron Paul running for president, which could be enough to push them on the internet and the rest is history.

For those of you who were able to get to the end of this lengthy article, did you notice the next to last line?

"Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States."

The audacity and arrogance of jounalists like this never ceases to amaze me. Let's make them eat their words!

It's a smear job -- I would have expected nothing less from the NYT. Not only that, it spawned other smear jobs by giving other writers the go ahead to expound on the insinuations Who cares if Ron doesn't watch the Daily Show? I'm pretty hip, and never saw it either. I think it's basically trash.

Here is one spawned article:
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...

And here is another:
http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/145524.asp
(Yes there is nothing wrong with the JBS -- they are a very educational organization and their research is solid. They are called names because they expose what is going on behind the scenes and the elitists do NOT like it. They have done nothing else wrong to deserve being attacked -- it's their IDEAS that are feared.)

I hope the campaign sues all their pants off. When you call the most honorable man in Congress a wacko, you should be punished. When you smear a perfectly honest group, then try to connect a person with that group, you are smearing him too. I have been dealing with local papers in NH that have gotten away with the most outrageous statements about Dr. Paul, the most non-violent, honest mand and candidate with the most integrity. They need to be sued as well.

I sent this letter to the editor of the NYT. We all know that our government isn't run by who we thinks it's run by -- otherwise there would be none of this NAU being planned in secret without congressional approval. I trust most of you will understand what I have written. Carry on -- your signs will be stolen and as we gain momentum, the attacks will increase. Let them know you are onto it and won't stand for it. In NH we have been through this many times before.

To the editor,

You claim that Dr. Paul can never be president. Is there something you know that we don't? If so the country is in more trouble than we might think when the media, such as the NYT, can proclaim who will and will not win the presidency as if there were some other influence in control, other than the vote of the people.

I would like to remind you of this quote from David Rockefeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

Indeed. Your statement in light of Rockefeller's proclamation of secrecy is a cause for concern for ALL Americans and truly demonstrates the need for a second revolution -- and soon.

Here's hoping this election will at least show the world why we are danger of losing our country, and why we need to root out the evil that is called the 'puppet' government, with other people pulling the strings, aided and abetted by media such as the NYT.

Jane Aitken
New Hampshire

Pick any stepford-media article you like. AP, NYT, Rueters, it doesn't matter. First they laud a few of Dr. Paul's more salient features, then they insert a few caveats, but the overall tone is good. Then wammo! they drop it on you: "BUT of course he won't win". To the dedicated Paulers, this only steels our resolve, but think about people who are fence-sitter's & the nation of amateur pundits out there more interested in the gaming aspects of an election & going with the winning team. What does this say to them? Keep moving nothing to see here, but maybe a novelty side-show. This psychology only works if part of the article is Paul-positive, which fools the reader into dropping their gaurd in a typical controlled opposition way.

But say I'm wrong about the subtle psychological aspect, does it really matter: Just say a Paul vote really is just symbolic. Just think what a vote for any of the other mainline candidate symbolizes! This "winning team" attitude has turned out to be a great tool for baby kissing closet tyrants around the world. That's why the stepford-media cultivates it every chance they get.

....but find it interesting that there is so much divergence of opinion here. I read it and, overall, thought it was great PR and stated so on another thread where SlySuperSpy supplied the complete context. Now I've read it again and still think it is good.

There will be many, many articles...and most will be a mixture. We are dealing with difficult issues. I compare this article to the rather banal...all positive...articles about other candidates and repeatedly note the lack of substance. They all come off to me as made-up, not believable. I care not a whit that this article may make people stop and think. I believe firmly it opens them up to the next RP mention they encounter. Here are some of my observations:

First, obviously it is a major article in a major edition of a major newspaper (though not a newspaper I particularly care about.) To New Yorkers it is their hometown paper. It is also read all over the world.

Second, the first paragraph is not necessarily the "grand slam" some of you see. This may come as a shock to many of you; however, not every thinking, intelligent Paulite catches every episode of Comedy Central. I like it but don't tape and only recently have watched such things on the internet. I've rather enjoyed what I've seen, but spend my evenings differently. Nothing wrong with RP not being into GQ (imagine Edwards reads every issue ), however didn't much like the "I don't know much about that" RP comment any more than the ridiculous "dainty" adjective. I think the author was just into cutesy "I'm a wordsmith" mode, because he then took the article into some amazing directions.

Third, of course he said RP "doesn't have much of a chance"...MSM will continue to say that all the way to the point when....they don't. That's MSM. Nobody holds you to anything you say. Heck, reconstructing Iraq wasn't going to cost a penny, said Cheney. We'll just use that oil money.

However, in between the "cutesy" beginning (hey you gotta start a story somewhere and in the NYT the oh so clever beginning insures a read....and the "he's a long-shot"...there was food for thought, IMO.

a) Anti-War--The author said RP was the MOST anti-war candidate and had never voted for this war (that practically nobody sees as a good idea) ie. he was able to see the consequences early on. He had opposed other wars (and name me one listed that any thinking person believes had "good" consequences.) Plus and best of all, he says RP has emerged as the most conspicuous anti-war Republican. The others can jump on the wagon and some are...but it is HIS wagon, he was there consistently. He owns it.
b) Neo-Cons-The author calls that out along with RP's stance and hardly says it is wrong. Note that he does not really state an opinion...leaves it up to the reader to use their brain.
c) Homespun-Lots of people LOVED "Mr. Jones Goes to Washington"...Mr. Jones, like Ron Paul, was someone you could trust. Most people wished we had Mr. Jones in Washington...now we have him.
d) Homespun is good- He is pointing out that the "aw shucks" first impression is actually for real. This is a genuine person. He actually sends birthday cards, his wife cooks homespun meals and shares recipes, there are even some bible quotes from time to time. Now, that hits those who would love to hear a genuine, "good" person and backs him up with middle-American values and some down-home religion. That hits a great many voters. (The only part I took issue with was Velveeta...yuk. If I ever meet Carol I'm gonna tell her that stuff is glue unnaturally died orange and produced by a "bad guy" conglomerate out to poison us all ).
e) Intelligent- The author then makes certain that on top of a real, genuine, downhome, Christian, family values guy that sticks to his guns and tries repeatedly to "tell Washington," like Mr. Jones, this man has substance and has all his life. He "mulls over" things as a young man, he studies. Many a book has stated that most Presidents don't even try to understand the monetary system and have not a clue about economics. Anyone who has studied economics would be impressed and recognize that this is someone who backs his beliefs with sound study and a lot of thought. I could rip into many of the other statements in this article to explain why the whole thing paints Dr. Paul as an extremely well-rounded, highly intelligent, candidate and, probably the only one with the background to run this country at this time. I won't...but I cannot find a negative...only things that will make the reader stop and think. And EVERYONE who reads will intently read the dark, bold heading Financial Armagedon..(.everyone knows our financial situation is bleak at best and now the likes of a Murdock can actually "buy" the Dow...God!) Perhaps someone who has actually studied different economic models might actually know something!
f) Bio- This author provides a more complete bio than I have seen anywhere as far as how he grew up, who were his parents, etc. We even learn that "dainty pint-sized" Ron was an exceptional athlete. (Closest Bush got to that was tying firecrackers on cats tails...harumph.) He became a doctor and brought children into the world (as opposed to killing children or being pro-kill children.) Unlike Bush and others who never managed to get out of the country while avoiding the draft, Ron was a flight surgeon and traveled extensively as such. I find the bio exceptionally positive. Shows him to be an extraordinary man.
g)Republican-The author clearly alludes to the shifts in the Republican Party and correctly paints Ron Paul as a "different kind of Republican"....and most people think that is needed. Republican who appeals to those who don't like the way the Republican Party has gone...Libertarian as well, but a clear thinker who will not follow a platform...unless the platform is the constitution.
h) Who Likes Him....So called "fringe" groups and they are not shown in a particularly negative light in my opinion, young "wired" and they are not presented in a negative light, Christians who can't reconcile "preemptive strikes" with Christian values, Libertarians who loved Goldwater and aren't all that happy with the way their party has gone, people who think the country has "gone to hell in a handbasket" (which is most of everybody.)
i) Marginalized-The author even brings up the fairtax shutout. I believe he is all in all going as far as he can to say, "we ought to look at this guy" without saying it. I believe he took it as far as he could given paper ownership and cleverly cloaked a huge "don't overlook this guy." Personally, I think it is genius and thank the author.

I strongly disagree with anyone who considers this a negative article. It is the best media things that has happened. I would even go so far as to say the author is leaning RP. How self-effacing...how totally non-arrogant for a politician to actually say that it is not the politician that matters, it is his ideas.

Please re-read if you think this is any kind of a slur. Let's not go for articles that tell people WHAT to think...let's go for articles that encourage people to think. (I'm gone for the day...sorry for the length!)

It's a little uncanny how many newspaper writers and television hosts are so quick to conclude that, while Rep. Paul seems like a very likable candidate, he will surely not be the President. No other candidate is being singled out for defeat like our man Ron. At first, I get a little disgusted, but then I realize that the more they dish on Ron, the stronger his support base gets! Fantastic. Let's get our yardsigns out early. They are great conversation starters. Anybody with half a brain has to support Rep. Paul!

It's also frustrating when you read statement's like: "While he backs free trade in theory, he opposes many of the institutions and arrangements — from the World Trade Organization to Nafta — that promote it in practice."

The WTO and Nafta don't promote free trade, hence his opposition to it.

.
For the prestigious New York Times to devote so much favorable space to Dr. Paul is a watershed. It was about as fair and comprehensive as they could possibly muster. I held my breath as I read, thinking the other shoe was going to drop. But it didn't. They let Dr. Paul skate, even with the allusions to the many weirdos who support him. I am one also.

Yes, at the very end, there was one line that said that Dr. Paul would not be the next president. But I think that was the Times' editor's insertion, meant to assure the Big Money guys that they don't take him all that seriously. But one negative line after hundreds of positive ones is a small stone in a big shoe. And, as negative comments have done in the past, it can only help.

we're told by the MSM Elite that Ron Paul has no chance to win. Why must they interject this commentary, and how do they know this? I think Rep. Paul is better known now that Bill Clinton was this time in 1991.

I liked the level of thoroughness, and it was pretty fair, but I have a hard time getting over a reporter saying that a candidate has no chance. The tone was something like "here's an interesting, quirky, principled, honest candidate for president. Here are some of his votes, and he's never deviated from principle, but he'll never win. If you vote for him, you're throwing your vote away. But, he's attracting all disenfranchised people from all walks of life, which is interesting. His meetups are comprised by a fascinating mix of liberals and conservatives. Many are total whack-jobs, though... and, by the way, he'll never win."

This isn't nearly as offensive as Stephanopoulos' snotty remarks, but I still resent the MSM thinking they can dictate election results like this.

At this point, I'll go ahead and pledge my $1000. I'm willing to do anything I can to make the MSM eat their words.