Talk:Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Neutrality on Page

The body of this page seems to display mostly positive remarks about him, I would like to see a more neutral page including criticisms should they be found.

2007 Presidential Debates in NH

I am fairly certain these have been moved from April to June to accommodate the top-tier candidates' schedules. Twalls 05:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign tour?

Shall we incorporate his campaign tour in the article. Id est Ron Paul was to New Hampshire before his announcement later touring to Arizona and now upcomming Iowa. Lord Metroid 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Just keep it objective and encyclopedia quality please. JLMadrigal 12:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mulshine

Is Paul Mulshine notable enough to be included under endorsements? What are his credentials? JLMadrigal 12:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, I don't know who Paul Mulshine is, I don't even live in USA... But the article seemed to portray Paul Mulshine in a light of importance in the journalist scene so I added him. Maybe, he shouldn't be mentioned? Lord Metroid 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would be best to omit him, unless you create a subsection for journalists. JLMadrigal 12:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume those two endorsements are there because of the positive comments those people made that are listed in the "what people are saying" section of Paul's website. Those are hardly official endorsements. All they really say is they like Paul.

Debates

The article says that the first debates will begin at 5:00PM EST on May 3rd. Is this correct? Elsewhere it says 8:00 EST JLMadrigal 11:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube and Ron Paul

Should the Youtube interview with James Kotecki be included on this page? It is, after all, pretty historic. 134.84.100.80 06:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it "historic"? MrZaius^talk 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview by amateur press using the internet as it's publishing medium. Dunno if it should be included but James have become fairly notable from what I understand.. Lord Metroid 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Black Out

First MSNBC ignored the results of their own poll then they admited them but down played them. Then ABC left him off of their poll and then down played the results after he shot to the top when they added him in. I'm thinking if this sort of media black out continues that maybe it should have a section detailing the behavior of the MSM -- Argash | talk | contribs 08:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not to. If the media blacks out Ron Paul, shouldn't it be exposed to the world here on Wikipedia? Life, Liberty, Property 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGREED! Every major magazine and online "news" source seems to include the handful of Republican candidates EXCEPT Paul every time they talk about polls, positions, or potential winners... 199.214.24.132 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable... Although I am a little bit afraid that it would only be tabloid like speculations and doesn't classify as encyclopedic material. Lord Metroid 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there are alternate news sources that meet the reliable source criteria and that watchdog the main news sources. I've added one. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507ronpaul.htm] GarryKosmos 21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info definatly needs to be added. Here's another source. [1] --Ted87 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg earlier in the week published a poll that excluded Ron Paul, yet included the other Republican candidates and even some that haven't yet announced their candidacy. Terjen 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew I would wake up and see MC Hammer listed as endorsing Paul. I just knew it. -_- Is virtuopath important enough to be listed? Granola Bars 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC discounted the results of their own poll since most of the votes were coming from the same few individuals.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} They regarded this as nearly stuffing the ballot box.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} As for a "media black out", CNN noted last week on their political ticker that they've had to turn off "commenting" on their blog since most pro-Ron Paul comments were all actually coming from two IP addresses (over 800 total in one night), which they considered an abuse of the feature.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

Endorsements?

I'd hope that Goldwater, Jr. has endorsed Paul, being that he has traveled with him extensively on his campaign and spoken at meetings. If that's not enough proof for you, I don't know what is.

Pat Buchanan gave a spirited outline of Ron Paul's positions in answer to the question of who is "the one who adheres closest to your conception of classic conservatism" but did he actually endorse him? If so, provide a better citation - the You Tube clip does not support the contention that this was an endorsement. Words have meaning. Tvoz |talk 18:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same question for Barry Goldwater, Jr. He sounds supportive in the clip, but has he actually endorsed him? If so, please provide a citation. If not, it is original resaearch. Tvoz |talk 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Smith of Exemplar Capital said Ron Paul is who everyone should vote for. Does that count as an endorsement? [2] 72.255.35.249 01:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you folks understand what an "endorsement" is? To my knowledge Pat Buchanan has not endorsed any candidate - and certainly the Youtube clip of the MSNBC pre-debate is not an endorsement. Yes, he thinks or thought that day that he was the closest to a classic conservative. but he did not say "I am going to vote for Ron Paul and I urge you to." That is an endorsement, this is not. You are doing a disservice to the truth in this article. The same question applies to Goldwater - the link I saw was short of an endorsement - it was a welcome to Arizona. I haven't looked to see if there is a better citation now. I was unable to open the Stossel link - same question. You have to be more rigorous and less partisan in this article and the Ron Paul one - this is an encyclopedia, not a campaign venue. If Paul's website lists someone as having endorsed him, cite it. Don't post your original research. Tvoz |talk

Now I did open the Stossel piece - like Buchanan and Goldwater, he says that he likes Ron Paul, but he does not endorse his candidacy. Words have meaning. You can't just throw around terms like that - it is dishonest. He's not the frontrunner, he is not leading in any scientifically conducted polls, and he does not have these endorsements. There is much you can say about him and his candidacy but you have to stick to true, verifiable facts, that are reported by reliable sources. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this? Ron Paul Rocks! by Karen Kwiatkowski. Terjen 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my opinion. She clearly states she is voting for him and at least implies that she is making this announcement as a means of encouraging others to join her in voting for him. Doesn't quite say that, but it's pretty close. The others above - Buchanan, Goldwater, Stossel - did not, in the clips I heard or pieces quoted. If there are other sources, again, bring 'em on. Tvoz |talk 08:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put [3] this link should know it's not deserving of a place in the endorsements section. 1. The post is from the 15th of this month - there is NO way it is the first blog to endorse Paul as claimed. 2. Blog endorsements are not notable unless they're from a notable person's blog - like, say, Jonah Goldber on the NRO blog endorsed Paul (yeah, right!), that would be notable. - Pieter 2123 PST, 5/19/07.

The latest attempt to include Buchanan as an endorsement is also false. The citation is a column that praises Paul, but it nowhere says that he is endorsing him in any formal way. If he has endorsed Paul, get a good citation. Often on the candidate's own site is where you'll find such things. Saying he was right about the war does not constitute an endorsement. Can we try to have some standards here? Tvoz |talk 15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeff Rense endorsement needs a citation. On a side note, Lew Rockwell clearly wants Paul to win, but I haven't been able to find a specific article that could qualify as an endorsement. Granola Bars 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there is such an uproar over the endorsements. It can be mentioned in the article that he is "supported" by ________ and _________., or that ___________ said "" about him. It doesn't have to just be an endorsement.--Gloriamarie 21:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported" is not really better than "endorsed" in terms of accuracy, and "likes" is not in the ballpark. "Endorsed" has specific meaning, and is what is usually used in articles about political candidates - who is willing to say "I am voting for this person and I encourage you to" - means much more than "I like him/her" or even "I support him/her" which is vague. So I think we should stick to official endorsements, which are usually on the candidate's own website, and verifiable, rather than doing what amounts to OR saying someone "supports" someone - again, it's vague. BIll Maher likes Ron Paul. Has he endorsed him, saying vote for him and no other? NO. Does he "support" him? I don't know what that means. Tvoz |talk 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So after Dr. Paul was on the Daily Show, should we add Jon Stewart to the endorsements list because Stewart was nice to Dr. Paul and said he appreciates principled people? ;) - Pieter, 6/4/07, 2221 PST.

Precisely. But unfortunately I won't be surprised to wake up tomorrow and find it there. Tvoz |talk 05:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Pat Buchanan comments, Judge Napolitano's comments about Ron Paul in the YouTube link provided do not constitute a political endorsement of his Presidential candidacy. I listened to the clip (1 of 4) and he praises him, but does not say words to the effect of "I am, and I urge you to vote for Ron Paul for President." That is what an endorsement is, and if the judge has done so, find a reliable source that backs it up and re-insert into the list of endorsements. But this is not that. Tvoz |talk 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size of narrative

The narrative on Ron Paul is bigger than this narrative even though it is suppose to be a summary. Information needs to be transfered. Lord Metroid 07:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the length of the information on the debates in the Ron Paul article is pretty bad. Granola Bars 19:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 15 Debate

Looks like Ron Paul's going to get a lot of press over this one. Here's one for starters: [4] Xuanwu 03:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has covered it some: [5]. And another source that may or may not be reliable: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts]. Xuanwu 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be a "not", as for reliability of freerepublic.com. Tvoz |talk 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. It's why I'm listing them here rather than adding them right in. For one, we'll need to organize what needs to be said before posting it in to root out POV. Another source: [6] Xuanwu 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this story will get some "normal" news coverage, since Giuliani is a part of it, so maybe wait for sources that are mainstream? Tvoz |talk 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul vs. Guiliani

It seems that we should probably include something about the remarks between Guiliani and Paul in the May 14th debate. I'm not exactly unbiased, so I really don't trust myself writing anything myself. It seems heavily commented on by the pundits though. DeviantCharles 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting sources above. Feel free to contribute some as they emerge. Ron Paul is getting a lot of attention (both good and bad)! Xuanwu 03:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN contributor Roland S. Martin has an excellent article about Ron Paul's controversial debate comments here. Title: "Paul's 9/11 explanation deserves to be debated" --JHP 02:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 15 debate is what put Ron Paul on the internet map. This is a partisan video I did for YouTube. I hope it's okay to put a link to it in the talk section. Obviously I have a bias. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofBJpot-aJs Jive Dadson 04:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher says Ron Paul is "my new hero"

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher and I saw this: [7] and it seemed notable to me. I'm not quite sure where it would belong though. Is this an endorsement for him for president, or at least for the republican primary?

It;s not an endorsement. Tvoz |talk 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it belongs on the page though? Or is it not notable enough? He also was brought up on the daytime show The View where he got some support from Joy Behar.DeviantCharles 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning. While not an official endorsement, it's pretty strong language. Interesting video.--Gloriamarie 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be included, note that Maher interviewed Paul on his show fairly recently. He doesn't seem to have thought of Ron Paul as a "hero" then, though I suppose he may well have changed his views after watching the debates. Granola Bars 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we should not include people who say they "like" a candidate - it's not as committed as an endorsement. We need to wait and if and when they formally endorse, we say so. Tvoz |talk 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ron Paul is gonna be on Bill Maher Friday, so if an official endorsement comes, it's gonna be then. I'll make sure to watch it and post back about what happened.DeviantCharles 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I just watched the Bill Maher clip with Ron Paul and it really seems like an endorsement to me. It's up on youtube so you guys should check it out too and see if you think it is also an endorsement for Ron Paul, at least for the republican primaries.DeviantCharles 07:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was an endorsement. In 2000, Maher spoke highly of Harry Browne, but endorsed Ralph Nader! James1906

If that wasn't an endorsement, what is? -STA654

This is NOT an endorsement. Where in the clip does Maher give ANY indication he is planning on voting for Paul? "Political endorsement is the action of publicly declaring one's personal or group's support of a candidate for elected office." Maher says he likes Paul - he does NOT say or indicate he's supporting his campaign in any way. I'm removing this AGAIN. - Pieter, 5/30/07, 0001 PST

I agree with the removal. Words have meaning - this is not an endorsement. Tvoz |talk 08:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Tucker Carlson came a lot closer to an endorsement than Maher.69.120.20.234 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Tag

The article is decent now, and it's longer than some other presidential candidates' campaign pages. The expansion tag was placed on it awhile back, so I'll take it off now.--Gloriamarie 03:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still need to look at the debates - there is a separate article on the debates and probably some of the stuff in this one should be removed with a pointer to it. Tvoz |talk 03:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What article is that-- on the debates?--Gloriamarie 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard

I read on the internet..I believe it was a blog..that Ron Paul, candidate for president of the U.S., was a close associate of the anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard. Is this true? Anyone have a solid reference for this? After reading this, I'm recognizing a lot of Rothbard influence in what Paul says. Paul sounds like a near-anarchist. Ansetropen 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember reading that awhile ago as well. However, Paul is not an anarchist - He is a minarchist, or at least something close to it. Granola Bars 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of their association or what-not but considering Ron Paul ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. He and Murray could very possibly have met. It is however clear that Ron Paul does promote one small government organization system(Minarchism) as he speaks about issues such as immigration for example. However it is impossible from what we have heard him speak of whether or not he finds the idea of free-market based competing government organizations(Anarcho-capitalism) appealing or not. Of course Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul's ideas are quite similar as they both subscribe(d) to Austrian school of thought in economic theory founded my Ludwig von Mises. Lord Metroid 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Ansetropen is a sock puppet and banned for a year. This is more appropriate to Political positions of Ron Paul. I wouldn't even necessarily say that Ron Paul is a minarchist. As a federal-level politician, he believes that many federal powers in use today are delegated to the states by the Constitution. He is a firm believer in the Constitution and protecting individual liberty. Obviously, if states take over what the federal level is doing, government would have to be smaller, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't exist.--Gloriamarie 21:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

need help re-sizing photo - it is way too large

A bit large, don't you think? I couldn't figure out how to amend the size in the infobox - adding "image size" doesn't do the trick. Could someone please scale it down to standard size? thanks Tvoz |talk 08:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a better picture could be used-- this one is too large and an official picture would seem to be more appropriate. --Gloriamarie 02:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNN/MSNBC polls

Cookies prevent users from voting in these polls more than once-- if I go to the pages of the polls, I just get my end results, not the original poll that I can still vote in. So, I removed that sentence.--Gloriamarie 22:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, there's no way to cheat cookies. Your behaviour is disgusting. --Daniel Mendes 18:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much money has been raised?

How about some info in the article about how much money for the campaign has been raised? I don't have that information, so if anybody does, please add it. Free gifts 18:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor had it at $5 million a few weeks after the big surge of May 15. Pretty reliable sources. I think the numbers have to go to the Feds on the 30th, to be announced on July 15. Not sure. Jive Dadson 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher

Can Bill Maher be named as an endorser? He's called Ron Paul "my new hero" on his national TV show, and he is a MySpace friend of Ron Paul's, on the front page. Jive Dadson 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not until he formally endorses. However, these facts can be mentioned.--Gloriamarie 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop putting Bill Maher on as an endorser.

Include nuclear option stuff

I think we should include something about how Ron Paul said how he couldn't believe that the other republican candidates weren't even willing to take the nuke option off the table. It seems pretty notable.--DeviantCharles 23:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman

He's dead. He died before Ron Paul's presidential campaign even started. Should that quote be moved to somewhere in the main Ron Paul article?

I don't know if it fits into the main article, but I have removed it along with the Reagan quote. I added that section for comments by current observers of the campaign.--Gloriamarie 02:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RonPaulAmericanConservative.jpg

Image:RonPaulAmericanConservative.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Scarborough

Can he be considered after this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_y79uDkcPI ? Casey14 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view?

First, just to clear up any possible misconceptions, I am leaning toward supporting Ron Paul in the primaries. The election is still quite a ways off in the future, but he's my favorite candidate at the moment. That being said, I feel that this article is significantly biased toward the pro-Paul side. The polls section seems to mention only the polls in which Paul has done better than his average showing, and the fundraising section also mentions mainly Paul's successes and not his failures. I would appreciate it if editors could keep in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement or endorsement. -Etphonehome 20:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me thank everyone who contributed to this article for reminding me of why I can't say the word "Wikipedia" IRL without giggling. I also managed to get a good laugh from the spectacle of self-proclaimed Libertarians engaging in a Stalinist whitewash. 58.107.102.215 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to contribute, both of you can :)--Gloriamarie 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Endorsements

Shouldn't we need a source for pretty much every one of those endorsements? Granola Bars 05:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you add an endorsement, add a source.--Gloriamarie 00:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do we do about the massive amount of unsourced Endorsements that people have added? Granola Bars 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took off Chris Matthews, again, just because someone says something positive, that doesn't equal an endorsement.

Why was Alex Jones removed? --James1906 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:26:43, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality

I placed a neutrality tag on the page because it is obviously POV for Paul. I suggest adding a criticism section.--Southern Texas 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific about what is "obviously POV"?. Anarchist42 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove tags, it is POV for lack of criticism. It defends Paul throughout the article, even stating what Paul said in the debate was, "fact" when that is disputed. There is not a bad thing about Paul in this whole article but the fact is he is critized often. Please insert what Sean Hannity said about him. The tone in the article is biased in favor of Paul. Please correct it and then you can remove the tags.--Southern Texas 19:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the POV phrase "factually correct". Sean Hannity is mentioned (however, you need to provide a link to what he said if it is to be used in the article). Anarchist42 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually not POV because it said something along the lines of "a number of sources have since said that Paul is factually correct"... then it referenced those sources.--Gloriamarie 00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This the video of Sean Hannity interviewing Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY --Southern Texas 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Also there is a lot of conservative criticism of Paul, this page would be better with the criticism. You can find it using Google. I really don't like editing pages for politicians I don't like so I am going to leave this page alone and not put in the criticism myself. I don't care anymore, I'm just saying that if you want the page to be more NPOV it would be nice to have a criticism page like most of the other campaign pages. I'm staying away from this page.--Southern Texas 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are these criticisms of the campaign that should be included?--Gloriamarie 00:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not messing with this, if you want to live in a fantasy world thinking this guy is the greatest then that is fine. Every campaign is criticized and its ridiculous that you can't just go to google and find criticisms of the campaign so that the article can be more balanced. That is your business, I have more important things to do on wikipedia then deal with this garbage.--Southern Texas 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, because I just made an edit to a paragraph tacked onto the end of the "Internet popularity" section stating that "[i]t is said" that Ron Paul supporters just spam polls and his support base is mostly fictitious. If that's biased towards Paul, I'll eat my shirt. --Kudzu1