Talk:Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Media blackout

Strikes me that the seemingly-intentional lack of media attention paid Paul throughout his campaign should at least get a nod in the controversy section, so long as a reputable source can be found do support it. Thoughts? —XSG 17:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't seem to find a reputable source... Digg doesn't seem to cut it, nor does Students for Paul. —XSG 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Seemingly" is not enough, when reliable, independent sources start reporting on it we can add it. Of course, since Paul supporters are alleging a conspiracy among said sources, I guess we are at an impasse. Maybe the media just thinks that Ron Paul just an also ran, and isn't worth the news print, its not like Bill Richardson is making the new much either. Burzmali (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We are unlikely to have serious scientific research for this race until after the election. I haven't seen much of substance yet, only anecdotes and self published commentary.[1][2]links removed Relevant media science fields include agenda setting, media influence and content analysis, so those are key words to search for. There has been plenty of research on past elections though.[3] Terjen (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can it be less of a conspiracy and more of an issue of they simply don't think he is that relevent? Save Nevada, he hasn't done very well. They did almost no coverage of Hunter (and he even beat Paul in WY), nor have they covered Gravel, Dodd or Biden (before they dropped) much on the Democratic side. Even their coverage of Guiliani is dropping off. In national polls, Guiliani is still getting reasonable numbers, but Paul is getting about 4-5% in most. I bet we see coverage on Thompson drop off too. "Blackout" implies conspiracy. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift36 can't you see that the less the media mentions your name and a lowered amount of face time= less votes. Look at Huckabee he was a nobody untill all of his coverage. Yes their is a blackout. Even many Fox stations claimed McCain was 2nd in NV...--Duchamps_comb MFA 19:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what color the sky is on Planet Paulista, but here in Milwaukee the local and national reports all said that Paul came in second in Nevada. He gets less coverage locally than Edwards, more than Kucinich, which matches the polls. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For a very long time, Ron Paul was only a faint blimp on the radar, getting no more than 2% or 3% in the serious polls. This is the way I remember it—Niteshift36 mentions 4% or 5%, which is also possible—but it wasn't very much, in any case. To think there's a conspiracy going on against him, of course, is laughable, as the media are not going to pay much attention to a man who essentially hardly anyone cares about. Why else do you think that the ones that dropped out barely got any media coverage? Because they simply weren't appealing, and didn't stand a chance. —msikma (user, talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that a media blackout this late in the game, with the field narrowed down to 5 candidates, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The argument could be that he's only 5% in the national polls because the nation hasn't had a chance to hear his stance on the issues. There is validity to that claim, although it is imposible to prove. Regardless of the validity of the argument, it should be worth a mention in the controversy section, since, after all, it is a controversial. While I'd be neutral on this issue, I'd lean to the fact that it is, in fact, a controversy. More to the point, the controversy of the media control over the democracy probably deserves it's own page, if there isn't one already. Ekilfoil (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul is actually tracking less than 5% nationally. He's actually gone down since the other 2 quit the race. He is simply NOT a factor as far as the networks are concerned. Calling it a blackout implies conspiracy. Conspiracy is the combined agreement of parties. Would anyone like to show evidence of an agreement between any networks to leave Paul out of coverage? No? Didn't think so. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The concern about media giving some candidates less coverage goes beyond the Paul campaign and is an area of scientific study.[4] It is one of the controversial aspects of the American political system. Terjen (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic media coverage of the elections is a serious concern universally, Terjen. You may find Tom Tomorrow ideologically repugnant, but I suggest you have a look at his most recent strip. The candidates may be different, but the concerns are to some extent identical. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Niteshift36, I'd love to show that there's a conspiracy, or at the very least collusion, among major media outlets to refrain from mentioing Paul in most circumstances, because it appears to be true. I've seen national articles (AP, Reuters, CNN, ...) which listed results and mentioned the percentage and results of candidates who didn't do as well as Paul without mentioning Paul at all. I think I can find a few articles to support the inclusion of this in controversy. Finding reputable articles which would document conspiracy would be unlikely, however, so perhaps the section will be called Media Coverage, instead. —XSG 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bit of what I'm talking about:

File:Fox News 2007 Iowa Straw Poll Results.jpg

Ron Paul had 9.1% of the vote in this poll. While one example doesn't make a conspiracy or even demonstrate notable controversy, I'll continue to track down more. Not to prove that there was conspiracy, mind you, but merely to present that there is controversy about it. My article edits will be NPOV regardless of my stated POV here. —XSG 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for a bit and can't find anything that doesn't sound like it's written by a conspiracy theorist... most of it is purely hypothetical reports that Ron Paul should have received a better mention in an article. Perhaps collaboration will be the key for collecting enough documentation to warrant a Media Coverage controversy section. Can anyone else find evidence where Ron Paul was specifically not mentioned despite a mention for candidates who fared worse, or something like that? —XSG 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. Is he getting MSM attention? Not really. Then again, aside from Nevada, he hasn't done much. None of the networks are talking about LA since the results are tied to the voting that hasn't taken place yet. CNN doesn't even list it among their primaries held. But lack of coverage because they don't view him as a serious candidate is not a conspiracy. Lack of thoroughness or shoddy work is not a conspiracy. There is a big difference between what IS happening and a conspiracy. My point is, calling is a "blackout" strongly implies some concerted effort (aka conspiracy) and I do not believe that is the case. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I get your point. It's why, if I can cull enough information to demonstrate controversy, I will title it "Media Coverage", and not "Media blackout". I think you'd at least approve of that. However, the point may be moot; all I can find are heavily POV sources whining about a media blackout, I can't actually find much more than what I've got above that actually demonstrates controversy, and frankly I think I need at least five times that amount to make it worthy of inclusion in the main article... —XSG 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another anecdote: The January 18 issue of Time For Kids has a cover story about Who Will Win, with the cover showing McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and Thomposon... but no Paul. The story ignores Paul and incorrectly claims about McCain that "At 71, he is the oldest candidate in the race." A larger version of the cover could be a potential illustration for a section on media coverage. Terjen (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. They worded it poorly. If they'd said "At 71, he (McCain) is the oldest viable candidate in the race". Then they would have been correct and inclusive. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the word blackout implies conspiracy. http://thirdpartywatch.com/wp-content/nvqo0.jpg has another news screenshot where something is obviously wrong. The very fact that we're arguing about it makes it a controversy. But as was pointed out above by Terjen, I think it is a also a bigger subject than this one candidate. Huckabee has the same problem. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but I would call it a controversy. You can find thousands of news articles to show a trend, but it still doesn't prove anything in the long run. Ekilfoil (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy in Media has a February 1 column on How the Media Pick the Candidates, discussing media bias against Paul. Terjen (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bill Press discusses how [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55807 The media pick the winners] of the primaries. Terjen (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Project for Excellence in Journalism measured the campaign coverage index each week, finding little coverage of Paul, and now concludes that McCain wins the coverage battle as media move to anoint him. Terjen (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you "prove" something not in dispute. Nobody is disputing that Paul isn't getting a lot of media coverage. What has been disputed is what you have not proven...that there is a concerted effort or conspiracy for this to happen. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Niteshift. The question is if he's being ignored for not getting large numbers or ignored because of his views. I think it'll take a bit for a reputable source to pick up on this angle. Still, good job hunting down some sources that can be used later. Buspar (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am sharing articles that I have come across that might be used as sources for a section about the media coverage/blackout. One source provides a content analysis showing that he got little media coverage. We also have notable sources discussing the reasons. That's a starting point for a section. The question about whether the chicken or the egg came first can be left for later. Terjen (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Paul is "scaling back" his campaign (not sure how far you scale back from a 4% average), isn't this a really moot point? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how such changes to the campaign should affect whether we document the media coverage. It may make our job easier in general though, as certain editors likely will bail out (as some have already) now that POV pushing has less chance to have wider political influence. Terjen (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can clarify for me. When we were talking about the newsletters, you seemed to be all about "that is the past, stay in the present". Now you are interested in how the past media coverage has been on a campaign that is in its in the process of ending. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A Media blackout section would be a POV-attempt to raise a question mark in readers' minds as to whether there is a "media conspiracy" against Paul. You have two highly POV sources (AIM and WorldNetDaily--an op ed piece, no less) making the specific claim of media censorship (specific and yet so vague, I might add). You add to this a Pew study and tell the audience to make the connection. That seems fairly ORish to me. I would have less of an issue with working the issue of media coverage, especially the Pew study, into the article. I absolutely oppose a section titled Media blackout.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the need to thread carefully and avoid planting an idea through synthesis of sources and a suggestive title. It is a bit premature to criticize a section not yet written though. About the sources, Bill Press (the WorldNetDaily article) is a political commentator for Fox News, former CNN and MSNBC political commentator and former chair of the California Democratic Party. Accuracy in Media is a well established media watchdog. Neither are NPOV, but that can be resolved by proper attribution. Terjen (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter section

Hi there. Perhaps we should restrict the information on the Ron Paul newsletters to just the stuff that pertains to his 2008 campaign (e.g. the controversy surrounding the fact they were brought up again by James Kirchick of TNR). The earlier controversy, and perhaps a more detailed account of the newsletters, might be better to keep in the Ron Paul article. —msikma (user, talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

At least the focus should be on what is relevant for the current campaign. It ties back though, as Kirchick essentially revived an old story. Terjen (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The things that appear on this article should predominantly be about the 2008 campaign, except when it's necessary to paint a context. That last thing is certainly a necessity here. But don't downplay the importance of this issue by saying that it was basically "an old story", since such a controversial thing is, of course, a major point of criticism for this candidate. —msikma (user, talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not downplaying the issue when saying Kirchick revived an old story. He did. I make no judgement as to whether this fact changes the importance of the newsletter issue. But it does change the importance of Kirchicks contribution. Terjen (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculously unfair to note that Paul was editor in April 1988, while OMITTING the fact that according to Kirchick's own documents, he had no role of the newsletter by May of 1988. Especially since the anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic invective only occured after Paul LEFT the newsletter. whether or not he knew about the publication is a judgment for readers to make. But the byline on the May 1988 newsletter showed that Paul be been replaced by Rockwell as editor.

68.115.87.181 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I ag re veehemently. anti-Ron Paul activists and other people who may be mistaken fhave continued to try and tie in the campaign with the allaged "racist" statements made in this newsletter so I Think that we should ge consensus to restrict how much releveance this alleged "information" has Re: the campaign. If you want to include these "racist" allegations, please move it to the Ron Paul page or a controversies re: Ron Paul page. Smith Jones (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved. His campaign is over, therefore history. It WAS an issue in the campaign, therefore, history. History certainly belongs in an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I feer that the anti-Sen. Paul crowds might try to use it to semmear the man and his cmapaign in this article. I would feel better if it was put into a separate controversy section, either at the botm of this article or in an article about a Republican candidates in general such as the Romney article or even the article of the newsletter on question. DOn't you agree??? that this is a reasonable and well-impaired suggestion? Smith Jones (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It was in a seperate controvery section. Paul supporters felt that giving it a section of its own made it too important and demanded it be blended into the article. Now, after the campaign is over, you want to change it. I vote no, leave it like it is. BTW, Paul is one of 500+ Representative, not one of the 50 Senators. He didn't get promoted or elected to a higher office. Given his less than impressive performance in the Texas primaries, I doubt he could get elected Senator. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

lol since when are there more than 500 U.S. representatives or less than 100 senators. BTWW the actual numbers are 435 reps and 100 sens, which you ould know if you studied Ron Paul and his Constitutiaonlly-based policies in depth as I have. its fee to disagree with Pauls policys all you wish but pleae try to get the basc facts right about the way the governmet works. In other news, i Don't not recall ever expressing my support for blending the information into the article the way it is now. the wa y it is now, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Its one of the first things that poeple see when they come into the article and I for once feel that maybe some neutral information should be near the top rather than quite nearly starting the article with some lefty hit job. But thats just me. :p Smith Jones (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I was thinking 50 states when I typed that. There are 100 Senators. My bad. 435 Reps......ok, so there are. I made a typo. I meant to hit 400+ And Paul is one of them. It's late, I'm tired and I made a typo. Wow. LOL, You have no room to lecture me about how the government functions when you don't even know which house of the Congress he belongs to. And yes, this was discussed months ago and a consensus was reached. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right re: the Senators or Representative controversy and im sorry that I jumped on you moonkeyback for that. I dont remember this debate re: the conensuns and I am going to WP:AGF hereby not assuming that you fabricated this "consenus". However, I really think that all of the controversies would be best either moved to a special location wtihin the article or created in an article like Controversies within the Ron Paul Revolution, 2008. Smith Jones (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a word for what you're trying to do, and it's forbidden. MantisEars (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. i am not saying that all of the criticisms shoud eb forked away but that they should be summarizedhere and gone into more depth in another article. the way it is not mis just a hit job on Dr. Paul. 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

An honest question about "money bombs"

Before I started looking into it, I thought Paul was raising more money than anyone. When I started looking at the actual numbers, I found Paul wasn't even close to the top in terms of money raised. From what I can see, a "money bomb" is simply telling supporters to wait and send in on a specific day so they can make a claim about setting a record. Is there something I am missing about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be missing the Q4 results for the other candidates, as the reports so far are for earlier quarters. Q4 reports are due to the Federal Election Commission by the end of the month. Terjen (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if he raised as much as Clinton, Obama, Romney etc, he is still well behind. But that still doesn't tell me why telling everyone to donate on the same day is that noteworthy? I'm asking a serious question. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's an unorthodox way of raising money, and it's gotten some press coverage. Paisan30 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

IT just seems misleading to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since all "money bombs" were performed in Q4, we'll know if it's been misleading when the FEC releases Q4 reports. Once that report is released, the section is likely going to get a bit of editing, anyway, so I think of it as somewhat of a non-issue presently. —XSG 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul hasn't raised more money total in 2007 (he didn't get very much at all in the first two quarters), but he did raise as much as anyone in the fourth quarter, which is a fairly significant accomplishment. Buspar (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Winner Takes All" primaries

Nightshift36, Terjen, please stop bickering. It appears that neither of you have all the facts, so I've researched and provided reference. Here's how it is:

• New Jersey is Winner Take All state-wide.
• Florida is up in the air due to being penalized by the RNC for holding the election before February 5th. Normally, it would be WTA by district, however the state chairman gets to make the decision now...
• California is WTA by district with a few WTA state-wide "bonus".

Now, doesn't this information belong here, and not in an article about Ron Paul? —XSG 06:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the details about the process to California Republican primary, 2008. Thank you for taking the time to research it thoroughly. Terjen (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FL is WTA. I've provided 2 sources (MSNBC and Real Clear Politics), aside from the wiki article about the topic. Same with NJ. CA is also WTA. "By district" or not, WTA is WTA. If you feel the need to explain the by district part, feel free. But please stop acting like the truth isn't the truth. I've been right all along here. "WTA by district" is WTA. Let is go! As for whether or not it belongs here, why shouldn't it get mentioned. Readers should know that the subject (Ron Paul) has to do significantly in the WTA states to get delegates than he has in some primaries where he got them based on allocation percentages. That is a significant thing in comparison to how Paul has acquired delegates. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. You're right. Sorry about that. I forgot that information presented in Wikipedia is designed to be incomplete and misleading whenever possible in order to confuse the masses. The mistake is mine. —XSG 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll respond to you in kind (instead of threatening to tell on you). "Misleading" is the watchword for Paulites. They spin everything and quibble over every word that doesn't paint Paul as the second coming. It sounds like Clinton asking what the definition of "is" is. WTA stands for Winner take all. WTA by district means Winner take all by district. Notice the part that says "Winner take all"? If you want to add "by district, when appropriate, knock yourself out. But don't say WTA doesn't stand for "winner take all" because it make you look like a spinning zealot afraid of the truth. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you any less of a zealot than the picture you paint? First, you generalize all "Paulites". Second, you set up a straw man argument, as I have never, not once, removed "WTA" or "Winner Take All" from this article nor denied its meaning; every edit I've made relating to WTA is to clarify whether WTA for a particular state is by district or by state. Finally, why on earth would you think that I'm a fan of Ron Paul? Just because I edit an article doesn't mean I support the subject of the article; it means that I have information that I can add to make the article better. You'd be hard-pressed to find a single edit of my many, on any article, that was ever reverted as being POV. I've singled you out because it's evident to me that the motivation for your edits is POV, but I'll do the same thing to any Ron Paul supporter as well; you're really nobody special. Just keep your eye on how this article progresses and you'll see me push them "Paulites" in line, too... —XSG 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Spin how you want. Yes, I used the term Paulites and yes, I am generalizing them. Would you rather some weasel words like "many"? I think you are a fan of Paul based on your conduct here. I might be wrong. You call it POV, I call it balance. I get to put the Paul spin in check. Where you have seen me argue is when spin gets in the way of fact. And yeah, I'll be interested in seeing you put them in line too. Unless it is very egregious, I'm not going to hold my breath. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you desire to put any Paul spin in check, and I share this desire. The one additional caution I have is that WP:NPOV isn't about balance, it's about neutrality. On Wikipedia, a positive statement plus a negative statement does not equate to a neutral article, it equates to a crappy article that doesn't fit Wikipedia's stated tenets. Modifying POV content with counter-POV content, even with the intention of balance, doesn't hold true to the spirit of creating an NPOV article. My goal with every edit of someone else's text is to reword things without any spin, stating (and citing) relevant facts as succinctly as I'm able. But enough about me... —XSG 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth counters spin. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against truth. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, Florida was a WTA state. One winner, all delegates going to him. No "by district" to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am certain that will happen), but isn't the outcome also linked in large part to the actual primary? At this point, we have no idea who gets how many delegates do we? Yet we are talking about this like it is a done deal. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why we cite an NPOV source and label it preliminary results.[5] Terjen (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana's caucuses process is, bluntly, a mess. Technically, Paul came in third behind a pro-life platform and McCain, however the pro-life platform may select McCain or Paul or anyone else, so at the moment, Paul's place amongst candidates is technical undetermined, but will be either second or third place, depending on what the pro-life platform does... Until Louisiana's results are released, I'd like to see the article reflect all possibilities as preliminary results, thus I've altered it to state that he came in second or third place. Once results are finalized, the section should be reworded to be accurate at that time. —XSG 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I do the math, technically if the pro-life platform selects Paul as their candidate then Paul would be in first place... so rather than state that he came in in a particular place, I think it's best left unsaid... Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, after all... —XSG 16:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We label the results "preliminary", opening up for that the ranking changes later on. We also have an NPOV source for stating that Paul is in second place. No need for doing original research. Terjen (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "among candidates" was part of the language we had there before (and I'm not going to check because Wikipedia needs some new servers or something for these articles with huge edit histories), but it is now and the current wording seems accurate and neutral enough to me. I wouldn't object if some mention of "uncommitted" and McCain were worked in there though. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely concur. Nice work! —XSG 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

American Freedom Agenda pledge

Does this pledge actually mean anything? While it may be true that Paul signed this pledge, could someone explain to me why this is worth mentioning? —XSG 06:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The pledge means commitment to a number of civil liberties protections, as listed on American Freedom Agenda. Notability established by the Boston Globe in Disaffected conservatives set a litmus test for '08. Terjen (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. —XSG 06:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Florida primary

Ok Paul fans, explain this from NPR: "Republican presidential candidates approach Florida's primary on Tuesday with no clear front-runner among them. And that makes Florida — which will award the winner of the GOP primary all 57 of its delegates — a coveted prize." [6] Does NPR have it wrong? They seem to be pretty clear about all 57 go to the statewide winner. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the Florida newspapers disagree with you too: "For Republicans, though, it's a winner-take-all contest for 57 delegates — nearly equal to the number held by the race's current delegate leader, Romney with 59. [7]. IT's straight WTA, no "by district" about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another FL paper: "Analysts say the winner could come away with all 57 delegates with as little as 28 percent of the vote." [8] And another: The winner in Florida, the first state in which all four top GOP candidates are actively competing, will be rewarded with all 57 of the state's delegates at the national convention." [9] How many more do you want before you guys will stop trying to say it is "by district" this year? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's enough. Before this, not a single source that I'd seen was irrefutable "state-wide winner take all". Thanks for going the extra mile to find these! —XSG 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delegate count

Buspar, why do you think that the delegate count should not be tallied until after the primaries/caucuses are over? —XSG 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki isn't a newspaper. The primaries are still in progress, so his delegate totals will be changing every few weeks. It's why I haven't included his performance in states: right now his second place victories in Nevada and Louisiana are his best showings, but he could win Montana and Maine, which is more notable. Best to let the primaries finish before mentioning them in the intro, so what's written is written from the perspective of knowing what happened without being subject to future correction. It's not like his straw poll wins or fundraising records, which are complete. Buspar (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Future primaries

Unless there is significant press concerning Ron Paul's roll in a future primary, we don't need a section. Citing a primary source doesn't really prove notability. Any specific reason they should be included? Burzmali (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps replace it with a table of primary types and results? —XSG 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement Change

Ron Paul's list of endorsements stated that he was endorsed by both Jane Roe and Norma McCorvey, which is funny seeing as Norma McCorvey is Jane Roe! So I removed Norma McCorvey from the list, as not only did it seem the less notable/recognizable of the two, but Jane Roe also redirects to Norma McCorvey. SpudHawg948 (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul competed in Florida

Paul DID compete in FL. He may not have campaigned heavily, but he did compete. His name was on the ballot, which he paid the fee to have done, campaign signs littered the streets and he received votes. Stop trying to spin it into some excuse. If he didn't CAMPAIGN heavily in FL, then say so. But saying he didn't compete is simply false. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The Philadelphia Inquirer article said he "did not campaign in the state". I have changed the text accordingly. Terjen (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)\

Not for nothing, but if you look in the article, you'll see where it brags about Paul launching an 8 state ad campaign. One of those states? Uh huh, Florida. Ad campaigns sounds like campaigning. So which of these needs deleted because both can't be correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think sounds like campaigning. We have an NPOV source stating he didn't campaign. Terjen (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does it even matter one way or another? The article shouldn't be an apologist for Paul's poor performance in the state. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the Philadelphia Inquirer an apologist for Paul's performance? I don't think so, they are just stating the relevant notable facts.[10] And so should we. Terjen (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How is something buried at the bottom of one story, mentioned as an aside, a "notable" fact? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both simply can't be true. It is the authors OPINION that Paul didn't campaign. Whether you call him NPOV or not, his opinion is at odds with the fact that BEFORE the Florida primary and his 3% result, Paul was claiming FL was part of his 8 state ad campaign. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is not an opinion piece, but reporting by a senior writer of the Philadelphia Inquirer. We may attribute the newspaper to accommodate your concern about this being their understanding. Terjen (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you not paying attention? It already IS in this article and sourced! Why do you want me to source the same thing again in the same article? Read the section about Q1 of 2008. It's the first freakin thing! Niteshift36 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Want it again? "Paul's fervent followers raised nearly $20 million in the fourth quarter alone, including a new online one-day donation record in excess of $6 million. With those funds, the 72-year-old, 10-term Texas Congressman with the libertarian ideals is launching an eight-state ad campaign on radio stations in California, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, North Dakota, Louisiana, Maine and Florida this week." It is dated January 7, 2008. [11]. This source, and the mention of the 8 state ad campaign, listing each state, is already in this article. How can you now try to tell me you need a source for it? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that sources are not infallible. Clearly, one source contradicts the other, so if you'd like to make your case, find multiple sources. This message is directed at both parties commenting above. My gut tells me that the author of the Philadelphia Enquirer piece meant to say that Paul didn't stump in Florida and the author didn't consider that the television campaign technically qualifies as a "campaign".—XSG 05:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that is what the Philly author meant too, which is more of an opinion than a fact. When you are buying radio ads and putting up signs, I think most people consider that campaigning. And Paul was in the state for several debates and a forum between Sept. 2007 and the primary. So if you don't go and hold rallies, does that mean you didn't campaign, even though you spent money on ads and signs to get your message out? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve Kubby

How can a candidate endorse another candidate. An endorsement is telling people to vote for him (Paul). Kubby is running for the same office. If he is telling people to vote for someone else, then he isn't really running for the office himself, which means we shouldn't be calling him a candidate since he isn't campaigning to win the office. 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A candidate can endorse another candidate simply by stating so. You can be a candidate without intending or having a chance to win the office. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed. its like when gancidate RUdy Giuliani endorsed McCain recently. that does not realy meant htat guilinian had no internetion of running in the first plcae; he was a candidate and he chose to endorse the other candidate. Smith Jones (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Guiliani didn't endorse McCain until AFTER he dropped out of the race. If Kubby isn't in it to win, then he's not a real candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal understanding of what "candidate" means is of no importance. Terjen (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my personal definition. Try a dictionary. candidate: a person who seeks an office. How can Kubby be seeking an office if he is telling you not to select him for the office? Explain that logic. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates understand they will not be elected so they will sometimes endorse someone else alongside running themselves as virtually all LP can Constitution Party candidates did with Paul98.17.177.157 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Neal Mc.

If they are taking up space on a ballot with no intention of trying to win, they are doing their party a disservice and should be removed in favor of a person who is willing to make the effort to win. Running one person while endorsing another is one reason why third parties are not taken seriously. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

David Duke

I removed the endorsement by David Duke because the citation did not show endorsement but rather a bit of pety jealousy. These types of things should be cited properly if they are to be included. --DerRichter (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll results idea

An idea to keep the poll results list from being too long: how about we lump together all the Super Tuesday states into paragraph form? It'd save space and avoid it being a list. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary Results

Here's the thing: lists are not a good format for articles. Also, nothing in the list Niteshift adds is new. It's redundant with the main article about primary results. I suggest a simple summary of "He came in 2nd in Montana, 3rd in Utah, and 4th everywhere else." It's factual, to the point, and avoids the clutter of the version Niteshift is proposing. Buspar (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You've now both been warned about 3RR. I agree that neither version is okay: in particular, the list format uses line breaks (<br/>) which aren't good for style; but we really don't need separate sections for each state. I agree with Buspar's idea to have one paragraph that states how Ron Paul did in each state. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping track of my revert count. I'm glad you agree with the paragraph form. The editors of this article already agreed by consensus that sentences, not lists, was best for presenting information (we had this discussion with campaign developments, I remember). Also, the list fails to highlight important results (a second and third place finish is important to note) and hides some important stories, such as what happened with West Virginia. Buspar (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I will try to respond for the third time! Saying "He came in 2nd in Montana, 3rd in Utah, and 4th everywhere else." is misleading. "Everywhere else" is 19 primaries. And coming in 4th with 3% is very different than coming in 4th with 20%. Further, he is showing 5th in California right now, behind Guiliani. Where is the 5th. In my opinion, this is simply spin, trying to gloss over the fact that Paul got hammered today. Put the real facts out and let people decide what they want. In my opinion, you only want to talk about the 2nd and third and would prefer we don't talk about the other 19 primaries at all. This article is about how Paul is doing in the campaign, isn't it? Or is it just to try to make him look good? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, "4th everywhere else" is misleading. If we're going to go with paragraph form, we should at least list out each state where he came in 4th. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

First, you should be assuming good faith and not that competing editors are trying to "spin" articles. Second, an article is supposed to emphasize notable accomplishments. Placing 2nd or 3rd is more notable than 4th, therefore that gets priority. This is the same for every Presidential article; even Duncan Hunter has his accomplishments as a candidate noted. Giuliani dropped from the race, hence the wording "4th among current candidates." If you want to note the anomaly, go ahead. The number of primaries he placed 4th in is also important and I agree it should be included. But the current form of a list has no support either by typical Wiki format standards or by past editorial consensus. You should've edited my paragraph form with the info you wanted to include rather than reverting it out of existence. That would have been more appropriate behavior. Buspar (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The list format is premature. Let's keep the sections at least until the results are in as it then will be clearer what information is worth keeping. Terjen (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Then list ALL the results, not just the 3 Paul did ok in. Isn't that fair? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All the results ARE listed: Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries. The purpose of the section here is to expand on those results as they're relevant to Paul's campaign. You've apparently forgotten that distinction. That's why a summary is better. Space should only be given when there's something more to the story, like West Virginia, Maine, and Louisiana. It's one reason I wouldn't mind putting all the early states into a single section, as well, to cut down on the clutter. Buspar (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I second. For now and as work in progress, let's keep the simple results in a summary section, and the states with more details as separate sections. Terjen (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm tentatively leaning toward a list here. I know lists are ugly and discouraged, but we need to communicate quite a bit of information effectively and a list does that. We can do a list without the <br> linebreaks, and we could even brew up some prose in the section for notable Super Duper Tuesday-day occurrences.

I might change my mind on this if someone writes something really effective, but I think a list is most appropriate to tell the reader where Paul placed in each race relative to other candidates.

(edit conflict) Just saw Terjen's suggestion, which seems sensible.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Buspar, I came in here to have a civil discussion. I do not need or want your lectures about what I should do, say or assume. And is a 2nd place more notable than the fact that he placed 4th or lower 19 out of 21 times? I could make a case that you didn't assume good faith either. Your revert reason the first time was "ungodly ugliness". You could have prettied it up instead of just going back to pushing the Montana result to the exclusion of over a dozen of other primaries which you reverted and didn't replace. So don't come in here acting self-righteous. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I "prettied it up" by putting it into paragraph form - which you promptly reverted before allowing me to expand on it. Also, since states are still tallying votes and percentages, listing them was premature. Only relative placements have been determined so far, which I already covered. Again, you're accusing me of trying to hide data when I was improving the format and removing unconfirmed data. You need to read WP:AGF again. Buspar (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And in the process, you removed results from numerous other primaries and did not replace them. I haven't accused you of anything. I stated my opinion. We ARE allowed to have those. You need to read wp:agf yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Buspar says I shouldn't suggest spin then says "Space should only be given when there's something more to the story, like West Virginia, Maine, and Louisiana." Amazing, there is "more to the story" in 2 states Paul just happened to not finish 4th or lower in. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift36, you seem a tad emotionally involved. Perhaps you should take a break until things cool down a little. Terjen (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You've just violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You should refrain from editing for a while. Your sarcastic and rude attitude is highly inappropriate for a Wiki editor. Buspar (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You violated WP:AGF too, so stop acting self-righteous. And I WAS civil until you started lecturing me. Both you and terjen should refrain from giving unsolicited advice to people you don't know. I could comment much more extensively on how inappropriate you attitude is for both a wiki editor and as a person, but I don't want to hurt your feelings. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always assumed you mean well. I've only questioned your abilities (such as creating a list when a list is not appropriate), not your motives. And, once more, you've violated WP:CIVIL with a personal attack. The advice given is meant to keep you from violating policy. If you persist in lashing out negatively, I'll have to bring this to WP:ANI. Buspar (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you see this personal attack at, but if you feel the need to file a complaint, go ahead. If I were attacking you, there would be no doubt it was an attack. I don't mince words. Your unsolicited commentary on my attitude could be construed as a personal attack as much as anything I've said. You know what? Just do whatever you want with this article. Do 15 paragraphs on Montana and talk about Paul being "2nd among state delegates" in Maine all you want. Outside of wikipedia, it's not going to mean much. The voters are making the relevency of this article questionable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad job on the re-write. I'm good with it. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

More on referencing!

Everyone, please use proper referencing in this article! I've had to go through countless times and fix the issues. Don't just drop a URL in between ref tags; use one of the templates on WP:CIT to clean it up. It only takes another minute to add it in. If you need help with this, ask me. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsement

Should we be listing newspapers as "organizations"? The other organizations are what one thinks of as an organization. A newspaper is really just a business, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

True. Other candidates have newspapers in their own section. Maybe split it from "organizations" to their own heading? Buspar (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An observation on the results

Has anyone else noticed that the only states Paul got over 8% in were all caucus states? I have a theory on why, but before I put it out, does anyone else have any reasoning? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Perhaps you should consider trolling RonPaulForums or better find yourself a discussion group with like minded people. Terjen (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider not telling people what to do. It is a pattern with you. Have you stopped to consider that this observation, which has no exceptions to it, has a reason worth adding to the article if expanded? No, you probably didn't stop to consider that. Would you like me to suggest a website for you to visit? Or should I use your tactic and point out that calling me a "troll" violates WP:NPA? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Terjen makes a valid point: your personal observation on Paul's performance is not relevant to the article (since it's OR) and is therefore inappropriate for inclusion here. That kind of discussion should be taken to political forums. Also, Terjen has every right to remind you of appropriate Wiki behavior, the same way you have every right to remind him, as well. Buspar (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

if you have a reputable source analying the phenomenon that you noticed, User:Niteshift, feel free toa dd it to the article. Smith Jones (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Buspar, of course you think Terjen has a point. Nobody is shocked by that. I do not have any sources about the "coincidence". Maybe someone else does. How do I find out if someone else does? Um, maybe by asking! But I see the Ron Paul Admiration Society has no interest in actually exploring the idea. BTW Buspar, I never said he doesn't have the right to talk about conduct. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I went to the Ron Paul forums and this is in fact a topic of discussion there. Apparently this is an issue to Paul supporters, hoping to figure out what works for them. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an anecdote from today, on the site of The News Tribune, Washington: "As for Ron Paul, who posted double-digit numbers here, I can only tell you what I saw: Converts. At two different tables, I saw voters who brought position papers, read them to their neighbors and actually converted them into Paul supporters."[12]

The prevailing opinion among Paul supporters seems to be that turnout seems to be lower in caucuses vs primaries and that Paul supporters tend to be dedicated, leading to higher numbers. He is averaging 13% in caucus states vs 4% in primariy state. Louisiana had their caucus kind of thing and Paul did very well, placing second. Then when they did the primary portion for general voters, he did about the same he does in other places. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It could be a range of different things, between lower turnout and in caucus states there is a better chance of getting some support after the media blackout.98.17.177.157 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Neal Mc.

Except there is no media "blackout". As said before, a blackout implies a conspiracy or concerted effort. There is no evidence that they simply chose to not cover a candidate that they believed had no chance. I believe the answer is much more obvious. Caucuses involve activists, which is what Paul had. The general population clearly did not turn out in favor of him. If you look at states and compare how he did in the caucus then compare it to the general vote, you'll see that Paul performs poorly with individual voters. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Among current" vs. "Overall"

I say there should be a distinction between rankings among current candidates (i.e. just those who are actually running) and overall (i.e. every candidates, including those who've dropped). In both California and Louisiana, Paul's come in behind a candidate who already dropped but who'd either received absentee votes or was still on the ballot by accident. Since votes for "uncommitted" are usually not counted when we place a candidate's finish (Duncan Hunter, for example, lost to uncommitted a few times), I think it's fair to treat withdrawn/suspended candidates in a similar manner. Buspar (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Last is last. We could make up a lot of distinctions that would make his finish in LA sound better. How about being first among candidates with a medical degree. First among candidates with single syllable names. First among candidates who served in the Air Force. Funny you should bring up Hunter. Paul is the only Republican candidate than finished behind him in a race. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "current candidates" and "every candidate including those not running," so your examples don't counter my argument. Also, remember that 3rd among current candidates IS last, same as 4th overall. So it's not making him look better. You need to stop assuming that other people are all editing from a pro-Paul bias - it's not in keeping with WP:AGF. Buspar (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope Nite was just having a bad day when he replied since he just came across as an unresearched ass. But I do agree with his disagreement...if it says a dropped out Huckabee did better than Paul in the race then he should still be called as behind him98.17.177.157 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Neal Mc.

I wasn't having a bad day. I simply don't drink the "RonPaulisadeity" kool-aid. And you should read WP:NPA before you run around calling people names instead of actually trying to legitimately discredit my view. When you need qualifiers to make his placing seem better, there is clearly a bias issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Running Mate

I've heard that Paul said he would take Dennis Kucinich as his running mate if he were to win the election. I think that would be interesting to add, as the idea of a split party presidential candidate is interesting. Vaughnstull (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please

A careful explanation very much has to be made that his large base seems to have no idea what his actual policies are. Given the extremist or ultra-marginal positions he takes, and considering the general "left"-ish-ish character to much of his support base, it's blatantly obvious that almost no one agrees with much anything he actually believes in. Could someone please point this out? It would be very disturbing to compare the actual opinions of his supporters versus his own. --Jammoe (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul's supporters do want a smaller, less intrusive government, they do want to end the infringements on their civil liberties, they do want less taxes, specifically an end to the income tax, they do want the CIA to stop funding, training, arming and co-operating with *certain* organisations to push their agenda and enforce puppet governments, specifally in Latin America and the Middle East, they do want to stop illegal immigrants from benefitting fully from the welfare state of America without contribution, they do want less illegal immigration for that matter (but not less *legal* immigration), they do want to stop all trade sanctions on various countries across the world - Iran, Cuba, etc. - they do want a leader that will open diplomatic negotiations with all political leaders, specifically to increase trade especially with those which are currently under trade sanctions, they do want America to not only stop building more military bases across the world, but to reduce and eventually end all tenant in the hundreds of Vatican-sized military bases in over 150 countries all over the world, they do want an end to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, they do want THEIR military defending THEIR country HERE, not THERE, they do want the dissolvement of dozens of pointless governmental departments which are a huge drain resources without any benefit, to mention but a few issues. The grassroots support of Ron Paul is not just about Ron Paul, it is the message he promotes and his position on key issues, you could not be more wrong in saying the supporters of Ron Paul are ill-informed of his issues. To round off, his positions to you may seem extremist, but to me they are based neck-deep in common sense. And if I may paraphrase for a moment - "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confederacy_of_Dunces Moomoo25 (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First, this is not a message board, so keep conversations on topic. Secondly, this is a non-issue: if you can't cite references saying that "his large base seems to have no idea what his actual policies are," it's not allowed in the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jammoe is wrong anyway. His supporters know far more about his positions than most supporters of other candidates. That's one of the things that's made his candidacy so refreshing. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the "Mainstream" media

The Paul campaign and many of his supporters strongly believe that Paul is being "ignored" by the media. Likewise, whenever a talk show host gets a member of Paul's campaign on the air they tend to bait them with questions about their lack of media coverage in an effort to send them into a rant. I've removed the section that suggests that asking such leading questions constitute criticism of the media. Burzmali (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Blimp Section

I updated the section on the blimp, using information found on the Trevor Lyman page, which should probably be AFD'ed. That might be debatable, but the words "Ron Paul Blimp" are redirected to Trevor Lyman, which is clearly ridiculous. It should be redirected to this page immediately, IMHO.Msalt (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul Blimp is the service mark and website of Liberty Political Advertising, L.L.C., of which Lyman is a principal. Ron Paul Blimp is not in any way formally connected with Ron Paul 2008. I recognize your desire to redirect in good faith, but it's not ridiculous nor immediate, nor is AFD obvious. Let's wait and see. JJB 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr endorsement

I think the endorsement by Bob Barr should probably be removed because he is running his own campaign now. Im gonna asume the endorsement doesnt apply anymore. Just a thought. --DerRichter (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The endorsement list is meant to be historical, not current. For example, Barry Goldwater Jr. has endorsed McCain, but only did so to maintain party unity. So even though he changed to McCain, he still backed Paul first. You can add a note to that effect if you want, though, since that would be important to mention. Buspar (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thats cool. I like the additions you made to clarify it. --DerRichter (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As with all LP and Constitution Party candidates, Barr's endorsement is current...most third party candidacies are Plan B. 98.17.177.157 (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Neal Mc.

I've said this before. If a person is running and endorsing someone else, like Kubby, then they aren't a legitimate candidate. A candidate is someone attempting to win an office. If they are endorsing someone else, they clearly have no intention of winning. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

Hilarious how every single online poll Paul has won turns up in this article. Given that online polls are meaningless as they can be flooded, I want to recommend a removal of all references to winning any sort of online poll from this article. Either that, or a notation about the notoriety of Ron Paul supporters for spamming/flooding polls. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it funnier that the man is not even a factor in the race, yet they are still trying to make him sound important. They continue to tout these meaningless polls but ignore the REAL votes that never meet the hype. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so if there is an overemphasis on unreliable unsientific online polls here, just fix it up. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be nice, but I've fought that war. A small army of Paulites patrol with religious zeal and dispute every vowel that doesn't paint Paul as the second coming. Trying to inject neutrality and common sense becomes a fools errand in a Paul article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to believe that, so I just removed a reference to an ongoing unscientific online poll. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Google "Ron Paul" +Wikipedia +Afd or just go to a Ron Paul forum and search for wikipedia ;) Burzmali (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Have at it my friend. Bulten and his crew will probably be in shortly. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It took long than I thought, but the info was added back in. I'll skip saying I told ya so. LOL Niteshift36 (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I think we're trying to write something that's respectable here and an over-emphasis on unscientific polls works counter to that, and since it seems unanimous here that this type of thing is inappropriate, I'll just go fix it again. --Mountainsarehigh (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul Suspends Campaign?

yep http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/paul-suspends-presidential-campaign-forms-new-organization/ straight from cnn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we get to watch Paulite apologists dispute every word about his loss and try to spin it as a "non-win" Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

mebbe you shoudl stop baiting supporters of Senator Paul. thats not hte purpose of this website; the purpose is to compile factual and sourced verifiable information to this aritlce. Thats it. We dont have to comment on his supporters on the talk page or debate his policies or do anything except talk about imprving the article. Iunderstand that you are upset about Dr Paul and his message but the place for that is on a forum and not on a talk page. The talk page is for improving the article and not for discussing the subject of the articl.e Smith Jones (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will post my observations on the article as I see fit. I have watched this happen time and time again and observed it, yet again, today on the topic. The Paul Mafia fights, quibbles and challenges every single word that doesn't paint him in the best possible light. It becomes very partisan and when anyone tries to be neutral, they get ganged up on. But continue making your observations. I'm sure mine mean as much to you as yours did to me. BTW, Rep. Paul and his so-called message don't upset me, so you are misinformed. He amuses me, as do his disciples. And, for the record, I am commenting about improving the article. Making it neutral and factual, rather than laudatory and full of spin IS an improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

and tats very good but i really htink that instead of coming up with conspiracy ehtories about other editors in the talkpage you should dedicate even more of your edititng time to editing the article to make it more neutral and factual. there is no reason to argue with "Pual Mafia" on the talkpage; arguing with people on the Itnernet for too long is generlayl a waste of time and never actually convinces anwone to change ther positions. i really have to recommend again that you instead change the non-neutral and non-factual additions to the article that are added by alleed d r Paul Supporters. Smith Jones (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I AM NOT nor haev ever been a suporter of senator Ron Pauls preisdential race for 2008. i agre with your pirpose here in trying to reverse the :::::so-called Paul mafias aditions to this article; I only say that editing the article would be more efective than arguing politics in an inappropriate :::::venue as you insist on doing. Thats it. Smith Jones (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Could you point out where I am arguing politics? Have I stated a political position? Have I asked anyone to explain Paul's positions? I'm talking about the conduct of his supporters and how it relates to this article, not about politics. Maybe you have me confused with someone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

possibly, but i really tink that your accuasions regarding the movivations of the people who edit this article could be imflammatory wehtero rnor not this is true. i really really have to reocmend that you refrain from doing that since all it does is start viscous arguments. Smith Jones (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

also with your oppositon to Ron Paul some people might assume that you oppose the free market and favor increased gov't intrusino into the lives of private citizens. im not saying thats true but people might argue with you owith that due to to your particlar opposition to Senator Dr Ron Paul's decisions. Smith Jones (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of this confuses you? I am not debating politics. I am not discussing REPRESENTATIVE Pauls decisions (One title is sufficient and he is a representative, not a senator) on anything. I am commenting on his disciples conduct in this article. So while you prattle on with your theories, know that they are completely incorrect and exist only in your own mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

rep, senator, nice nitpicking skills, chief. Smith Jones (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that nitpicking? Senators and Representatives are entirely different positions, elected to entirely different terms. If I were complaining about capitalization, that would be nitpicking. Here's a new word for you to learn: accuracy. Imagine that...accuracy in an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

whatev man you win your the hardest guy on the block. do watever you want i just realized its none of my biusiness. Smith Jones (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't view it as a contest that you are losing. Try viewing it as a learning experience. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your input. You can call it conspiracy theory all you want. It can be shown by looking back through edits. But don't let the truth get in the way of some partisanship. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CNN pulled the article (here is a courtesy copy). Note that it drops the 's in "Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty", it cites the website letter out of order without introducing it first, and it refers to campaign suspension without sourcing it. In fact, as ronpaul2008.com made abundantly clear at the time of the announcement, the campaign is ended, not suspended. (Otherwise I don't believe it would be able to donate $5 million to CFL.) I expect to fix this at some point. Those who don't understand the statement "If you strike me down, I shall become stronger" may mistake the ways of OB Ron. JJB 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you say "Note that it drops the 's in 'Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty'". It's the Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty. That's how Dr. Paul says it in his video, and that's what it's called. -LisaLiel (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidebar

Diligent Terrier removed the sidebar with little explanation. I have reverted that edit as it seems useful in this article, but I'm posting this to get a consensus and avoid getting into an edit war. --YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello}_{Be shallow} 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

i suppot your restoration of the sidebar, and i will back oyu up if fellow editor DIligent TErrier attempts to browbeat you into agreing with his or her desicion. Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's glorify crime

I find it kind of sad that certain editors have fought to keep in blurb about Paul supporters committing crimes to support Paul. First, simply spray painting ugly graffiti on a bridge is hardly an effective or accepted campaign method. Second, in almost every jurisdiction, it is a crime. Not "technically a crime" or "not exactly legal", it is a flat out crime. Some places call is vandalism, some call it criminal mischief, but still a crime. The railroad bridge shown in the supporting link is private property. It costs the owner time and money to clean it up. I suspect the same editor who thinks it is so vital to include ths "campaign method" would be pretty pissed off is someone came by and spray painted John McCain on the side of his car. Or if a street gang came by and painted his house. If anything, responsible supporters of Mr. Paul should denounce this sort of activity and distance themselves from it, rather than make it look "cool" by including it here and giving it a legitimate tone. It's ironic that Paul himself is a supporter of property rights, yet his supporters violate the property rights of others in a misguided attempt to be "creative". Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in support of a candidate, especially a fringe one, is not notable; I removed the link to a blog post. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. this is just an other sad attept to smeear Ron Paul by linking his campaign with the actions of a few renegade fifth-colsumnist anti-constitutionals wh ovandlize people his stuff. Smith Jones (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, linking Paul to groups that promote criminal behavior isn't too much of a stretch, almost every tax protester organization in the country idolizes him, and he has spoken at their rallies (google "Ron Paul" +"WTP rally" for an example). Burzmali (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That hardly means that Raul is supportist of criminal behaviour, and I ahrdly see how a form of protest against an amendment that was nev erporperly passed counts as a form of protest. I still think that removing unsource dnad inflammarory informaiton about a major WP:BLP is a good idea. Smith Jones (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)