So, Taco, they are talking about you in WSJ Online.... [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : So, Taco, they are talking about you in WSJ Online....

AboveAverage

11-24-2007, 04:55 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Paul's Supporters Clash With Media
By AMY SCHATZ
November 24, 2007; Page A4

Early Halloween morning, "Taco John" posted a message-board call to arms: "Baltimore Sun Hit Piece...TAKE ACTION NOW!

The paper's political blog had an item marveling at how Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had raised more money than "better-known Mike Huckabee, who is taken more seriously." Taco John took to an Internet forum frequented by Paul supporters, providing a link to the offending item, as well as phone and email information for the newspaper's public editor and advertising department. "They're trying to pigeonhole us," he wrote. "If we don't fight back, they'll keep doing it."

Taco John, the online moniker of Isaac Lopez, a 32-year-old technology marketer in Vancouver, Wash., is one of many cyber-soldiers for Dr. Paul, the Texas congressman, gynecologist and vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. The Paul brigade has largely drawn attention for its fund-raising prowess, raising a record $4.2 million online in a single day in November and leaving the 72-year-old politician with more cash on hand than several rivals and a $1 million TV ad budget for New Hampshire. But some Paul supporters are displaying an aggressive side that seems to spill beyond advocacy into harassment of those who disagree or fail to show Dr. Paul sufficient respect.

Taco John, for example, posted contact information for a university professor who called Dr. Paul "unqualified to be president." He also provided information on how to reach several reporters with whom he quibbled, as well as the Iowa Republican Party after it helped set rules for a debate -- later canceled -- that could have excluded the low-polling Dr. Paul.

Taco John -- the handle comes from Mr. Lopez's appreciation of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway and tacos -- is a neophyte activist, who says he was inspired by Dr. Paul's libertarian platform.

Some blogs have booted Paul supporters for leaving incendiary comments. They have also been frozen out of Internet surveys and accused of electronic ballot stuffing; Dr. Paul rarely loses online straw polls even though he barely registers in national telephone polls. His supporters argue that they win online polls because there are more Paul supporters and they're better organized.

Many of Dr. Paul's supporters say they're simply fighting a media and political establishment that won't give him a fair shake. The big Nov. 5 "moneybomb" fund raiser was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day and inspired by the 1980s comic-book series "V for Vendetta," in which a vigilante in a Guy Fawkes mask wages war against a totalitarian British state.

The Paul campaign has also drawn support from antigovernment fringe groups and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Since mid-September, a large "Ron Paul for President" banner has flashed at the bottom of white-supremacist Internet forum Stormfront.org. "Really, we haven't seen a candidate like Ron Paul in some time. The closest would have been Pat Buchanan" in 2000, says Don Black of West Palm Beach, Fla., the group's founder and a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, who donated $500 to Mr. Paul's campaign.

The Paul campaign has a hands-off approach when it comes to supporters' activities and political backgrounds. While grateful for the money, aides insist they aren't responsible for what supporters do online. "We don't know who a lot of these people are," says Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman.

Mr. Benton declined to make Dr. Paul available to comment. "Sometimes, Ron Paul supporters get a little overpassionate and maybe a little more shrill than what some might like," Mr. Benton says. "For the most part, our supporters are polite and mannerly." He has his own conspiracy theory: Some other candidates' supporters may be masquerading as Ron Paul supporters to hurt his campaign.

The impassioned campaigning threatens Dr. Paul's efforts to convince undecided Republicans that he appeals to more than antiwar libertarians and fringes of the Republican Party.

"Basically, it got to the point where someone could put up a post saying they were going to the bathroom, and a dozen Paultards would comment, 'Vote for Ron Paul while you're there,' along with another dozen warnings of the Zionist conspiracy in the toilet," says Erick Erickson, founder of popular conservative blog Redstate. A month ago, the site banned posts from some Paul supporters, branding them "MoRons."

Afterward, the site was "deluged" with comments and "swarms and swarms" of hate mail, Mr. Erickson says. He changed the site's phone number, and says other blog owners have contacted him seeking advice on discouraging Paul supporters from posting.

Cris Vanricma of Ludington, Mich., removed Dr. Paul from his bipartisan presidential poll, StrawPoll08.com, after receiving nasty emails from some Paul supporters, contending some polls that Dr. Paul wasn't winning were rigged. The 31-year-old Web designer made a blanket offer: If the messages stop, the congressman goes back on. So far, Dr. Paul remains off the poll.

With issues like the Iraq war and civil liberties at stake, some supporters argue that now isn't the time for half-measures. David Chesley, 33, of Van Nuys, Calif., put his law practice on hold so he could support Dr. Paul. Mr. Chesley says he was attracted by the congressman's views on protecting the Constitution after what he considers President Bush's assault on civil liberties since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "I have an obligation to make this my full-time job," says the former Democrat. "All I do every day is go on the Internet or make phone calls or email the media."

When he felt the media paid too little attention to the Nov. 5 fund raiser, Mr. Chesley, who posts as "RP2008" on a Ron Paul message board, was furious. On Nov. 9, he urged others to "ceaselessly bombard" media outlets. "You need to organize, call, boycott, protest and sue the media that is lying to us, and if you don't, it is your own d- fault if Ron Paul loses," he wrote.

Some Paul supporters preach restraint. "I cannot stand to read another reporter/blogger complain about how they have received profane/threatening/intimidating responses from Ron Paul supporters," wrote "Hestia," a frequent poster on the Daily Paul, a popular pro-Paul site. "Sending hostile and abusive emails will not win supporters or encourage bloggers or reporters to write positive articles," Hestia adds.

^5

Taco John

11-24-2007, 05:18 PM

I'm craaaaaazy! (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119587208818602847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

Haha! I love it. Apparently my support for Dr. Paul is officially legendary.

It's an interesting hit piece. I had guessed halfway through the interview she was looking for a negative story. It's a shame, because she shounded so fair to start the interview -- like she understood our frustration about the amount of slander that was coming out about Dr. Paul (among other frustrations). I was hopeful at the start, but about halfway through, she started to ask questions that put me on guard and made me wonder if she was doing some sort of a "look how crazy Ron Paul supporters are" story.

And let me be the first to admit that I have gotten excitable at times when the media has taken unfair shots at Dr. Paul, and I used the RP forums as a vent, hoping to recruit people who felt like me and want to fight what's unfair. As far as I'm concerned, that's how the political system is supposed to work. In this day and age, public communication should not be a one way street, with the media and the rest of the establishment setting the course and the rest of us just agreeing to go along with it. I see that as the apathetic yesterday.

Anyway, I think she had her orders: Ron Paul is bringing in an unbelievable amount of money. We need to write a hit piece that makes them look like aggressive kooks. It's just another strand from the same fabric that Glenn Beck is weaving about us being dangerous terrorists. Anything we do to participate is going to be blown into something as ugly as they can paint it so that they can get across the message that "you don't want to participate with these freaks. You're better off staying at home for that caucus/primary."

In any case, this experience was disappointing, but not discouraging. It was encouraging actually, because it demonstrates to me that Murdoch is worried about the impact that we can make on the primaries.

alkemical

11-24-2007, 10:57 PM

Wow, so you are on rupert's radar... well done!

kappys

11-25-2007, 12:40 AM

alkemical

11-25-2007, 11:05 AM

it's amazing how freedom, liberty and civil rights make people "crazy" & "dangerous".

So now, newspeak is used where 2 + 2 = 5....

For freedom & liberty - you are a damn terrorist.....

It's so upside down, people are dizzy not sure what they are even looking at.

yavoon

11-25-2007, 11:21 PM

I've noticed one of my lefty friends has gotten a lot more anti-paul over the last week, like ron paul is a giant asshole kind of anti-paul.

Taco John

11-25-2007, 11:32 PM

I've noticed one of my lefty friends has gotten a lot more anti-paul over the last week, like ron paul is a giant a-hole kind of anti-paul.

Perhaps an Obama fan? Obama fans are starting to realize that the reason they're not able to compete with Hillary is that the Ron Paul campaign has attracted a large part of their base.

Check this out:
http://www.obamala.com/

yavoon

11-25-2007, 11:45 PM

Perhaps an Obama fan? Obama fans are starting to realize that the reason they're not able to compete with Hillary is that the Ron Paul campaign has attracted a large part of their base.

Check this out:
http://www.obamala.com/

he wants to vote for edwards. and that obama thing is hilarious:).

Rohirrim

11-26-2007, 10:40 AM

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Taco John

11-26-2007, 05:24 PM

I just received a call confirming that they would like for me to join them on America's Nightly Scoreboard with David Asman on the Fox Business Channel to discuss online campaigning.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/misc/progress.gif

Taco John

11-26-2007, 09:31 PM

God, I was nervous as hell... But I got all the points out that I wanted to get out. I'm getting a lot of accolades in the grass roots.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-1RgaQTapdg&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0lso3Kc5h_U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed>

yavoon

11-26-2007, 09:37 PM

kappys

11-26-2007, 10:17 PM

Well done Taco!

epicSocialism4tw

11-26-2007, 11:40 PM

Taco, you did a great job. Be proud.

alkemical

11-27-2007, 12:05 AM

Wow big media has no idea how the internet really functions among people

yavoon

11-27-2007, 12:07 AM

Wow big media has no idea how the internet really functions among people

there's been a lot of internet scares. so far none have materialized at the polls. I think the "big media" is just waiting for someone to cash in in reality on the internet. how can you blame pundits when ppl have jumped the gun on the importance of the internet so often over the past 6 years?

Taco John

11-27-2007, 01:56 AM

Rohirrim

11-27-2007, 10:55 AM

Rohirrim

11-27-2007, 11:16 AM

I think that Howard Dean could have made a real showing if his supporters had any backbone. I'm not going to make many friends with the Democrats by saying this, but the reason this didn't work for Dean is that Democrats have a philosophy that believes in safety in numbers. So when they get spooked, they go with where the crowd is going, and the crowd went to John Kerry. Howard Dean would have beat Bush. He would have ripped him a new a-hole and put Democrats on the map like you wouldn't believe.

On the other hand, Paul supporters are rugged individualists who won't care where the crowd is going, they'll stay the course no matter what. I'm not even considering voting for anyone but Paul this election. It's out of the question. The only way I'd vote for someone other than Dr. Ron Paul is if HE told me to vote for someone else... and only if that someone else shared his philosophy. Other than that, I plan on voting for Ron Paul come hell or high water every chance that I get.

I feel the same way. I've always been an Independent who leaned heavily toward the Dems. But I got the message loud and clear from them: They don't want me anymore. They say they believe in something, but they won't fight for it. Look how Kerry folded after the election. Why didn't he question the Ohio election? Hell, why didn't he fight the Swift Boaters? Why didn't the entire Dem party stand up and stop Bush's Iraq debacle? Why do they continue to fund it now? They don't even have the guts to say they'll pull out of Iraq by 2013 for fear of creating a bad sound bite that can be used against them in a general election. What kind of politics is that? The politics of cowardice. I guess the killer moment for me was when the Dem leadership decided they were the party of illegal immigration. That was the final straw.

The Dems are rabbits, blinking in the sun, starting at every shadow that passes overhead. I want real change, not new make-up on the same old pig.

Bronco Bob

11-27-2007, 11:23 AM

(reposted for this forum)
Excellent job, TJ. The media is doing its best to deflect from the ISSUES that the Ron Paul candidacy is riding on by trying to focus on the money or the internet. I believe it is the ideas that Paul is bringing out that are lighting the fire. If you look at our history, what are considered fringe, third party ideas in one election, often become the primary platform of discussion in future elections. These media people can't see democracy when it's hitting them on the head. You were right to point out that what we are seeing is the future. Managed campaigns are by their very nature, anti-democratic. Sound bite management is antithetical to a real, issue based campaign. As Jefferson often liked to point out, democracy is a messy business. We're SUPPOSED to argue and slug it out, not sit around like a bunch of sheep sipping pre-digested politics through the media straw. Well done.

Like this guy, for example?

Ron Paul Should Not Be Taken Seriously - Stuart Rothenberg, Roll Call

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/pauls_internet_campaign_wont_g.html

Thank goodness for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his campaign for president.

Single-handedly, the quirky libertarian Republican from Texas has unintentionally exposed the over-hype that accompanies much of the talk about politics and the Internet.

Paul has been doing well in post-debate call-ins and Internet "polls" for months, and his Web site has been scoring more hits than a bong at a Grateful Dead concert.

<<>>

The result is that many in the national media have treated Paul casually. Some media types surely find him interesting, especially given his views on Iraq. And people who cover "new technologies," including the Internet, have a self-interest to hype Paul's Web hits and Internet fundraising. But you hear very little about his kooky votes.

Hardly anyone is bothering to talk about his votes against resolutions calling on the government of Vietnam to release political prisoners and on the Arab League to help stop the killing in Darfur. Nor do they note that he said during his 1988 Libertarian bid for president that he would do away with the FBI and CIA, abolish the public schools, eliminate Social Security and all farm subsidies, and withdraw from NATO.

Reporters don't talk about his views and philosophy because they know he isn't a credible contender, but at the same time they refer to his fundraising and Web presence as if he's relevant.

<<>>

Check out Paul's Web site. He is openly appealing to voters who aren't registered Republicans by including, on the lower left hand corner of his Web site, a box listing "party affiliation change deadlines." "You must be registered with the correct party to vote for Ron Paul in closed primaries," says the site.

Sorry, but you can't win a Republican presidential nomination by relying on the support of non-Republicans. Nor can you win if you finish fifth in the Iowa straw poll (in which three credible candidates didn't participate) and third in your home state's straw poll behind Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.).

How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.

But there simply are not all that many of them.

defenseman

11-27-2007, 11:58 AM

Interesting piece TJ, good overall delivery and management of the time allotted.....dman

Rohirrim

11-27-2007, 12:48 PM

Like this guy, for example?
...

But there simply are not all that many of them.

I have no problem with the idea of dismantling the FBI, the CIA, SSA (as it now stands), public education (as it now stands), farm subsidies, etc. etc. etc. Would you like to defend those institutions of government? I'll be glad to join the debate. I don't believe the U.S. government should support an agency that tortures and assassinates. I think the Dems used to agree with that position, though times have changed, haven't they? The vaunted FBI and CIA allowed 911 to happen. How much good are they?

I don't know the particulars of those resolutions noted in the smear job you posted, but what are Congressional resolutions anyway, other than gas filled, feel-good balloons meaning nothing, other than their use as bludgeons on your opponents. My guess is that Dr. Paul voted on few resolutions as they are simply a waste of Congress' time. He probably voted against a resolution to proclaim Motherhood Day in Alaska (or some-such nonsense) as well. What good did the resolution of Congress to wag its finger at the Arabs in Darfur do? Absolutely zip.

But I can see why Dems AND Repugs want to attack Ron Paul. His presence embarrasses them, in many ways. He illustrates for them what backbone looks like. Awash in special interests as they are, I'm sure they don't like that. He also illustrates for them what it looks like when you stand for something, other than the continuation of a failed system. He wants to shut down their gravy train. That doesn't make you popular.

Keep riding the Billary GOP-Lite express. In the immortal words of David Byrne, "Same as it ever was."

epicSocialism4tw

11-27-2007, 08:18 PM

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against modern two-party politics and its self-serving, underhanded framework.

Dont eat what the media feeds you.

Vote for Ron Paul.

Bronco Bob

11-28-2007, 12:41 AM

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against modern two-party politics and its self-serving, underhanded framework.

Dont eat what the media feeds you.

Vote for Ron Paul.

Let's pretend Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination.
Any chance of him then running as a 3rd party candidate?

Taco John

11-28-2007, 03:00 AM

Let's pretend Ron Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination.
Any chance of him then running as a 3rd party candidate?

He says no. But I believe that he'll be able to force the issue well into September and make the delegates on the floor decide at convention, thus rendering the question pretty well useless. At that point, the Republican party will have a real "come to Jesus" session and work to bring him into the fold in whatever way that they can. They'll know that they can't win without him.

But right now, I'm of the mind to think that it might not matter.

I can see Dr. Paul coming in 3rd in Iowa on January 3rd, and also 3rd in Wyoming (nobody knows what to expect there or the effect it will have). If he does that, he'll get the Iowa boost. From there, I can see him winning New Hampshire. The next primary after that is the Michigan Primary, which is a mess. In fact, I'll be utterly floored if Ron Paul doesn't win this primary. Like New Hampshire, it's an open primary, but the Democrats have pulled out, leaving their voter base open to register as Republicans to support Dr. Paul. After that is the Nevada Primary... Unbelievable. Then South Carolina, where there is no front runner - Dr. Paul could make a strong showing there. And then finally, the Florida primary, where I think Rudy will see his first win. Then the Maine primary on February 2nd.

It's conceivable that Dr. Paul goes into the February primary with a head of steam. The thing is -- everybody is looking at the national poll numbers, and they don't mean squat. The only poll numbers that really mean anything right now are Iowa and New Hampshire (and arguably Wyoming), because once these primaries are through, they will affect the polling numbers across the board.

defenseman

11-28-2007, 09:07 AM

He says no. But I believe that he'll be able to force the issue well into September and make the delegates on the floor decide at convention, thus rendering the question pretty well useless. At that point, the Republican party will have a real "come to Jesus" session and work to bring him into the fold in whatever way that they can. They'll know that they can't win without him.

But right now, I'm of the mind to think that it might not matter.

I can see Dr. Paul coming in 3rd in Iowa on January 3rd, and also 3rd in Wyoming (nobody knows what to expect there or the effect it will have). If he does that, he'll get the Iowa boost. From there, I can see him winning New Hampshire. The next primary after that is the Michigan Primary, which is a mess. In fact, I'll be utterly floored if Ron Paul doesn't win this primary. Like New Hampshire, it's an open primary, but the Democrats have pulled out, leaving their voter base open to register as Republicans to support Dr. Paul. After that is the Nevada Primary... Unbelievable. Then South Carolina, where there is no front runner - Dr. Paul could make a strong showing there. And then finally, the Florida primary, where I think Rudy will see his first win. Then the Maine primary on February 2nd.

It's conceivable that Dr. Paul goes into the February primary with a head of steam. The thing is -- everybody is looking at the national poll numbers, and they don't mean squat. The only poll numbers that really mean anything right now are Iowa and New Hampshire (and arguably Wyoming), because once these primaries are through, they will affect the polling numbers across the board.

Everything has to fall his way. It's not going to. I see huckabee winning iowa and paul pulling up the rear in iowa to be honest, but we'll see. NH is a possible. Having grown up in NH, and knowing how those folks think, he could definitely pull out a W in NH. I'm guessing Paul doesn't take SC, Thompson and Huckabee are both "christian conservative" types, one of them will take that. For what it's worth, he's mucking up the water pretty good right now. After NH is where the rubber meets the road. I do see Rudy and Romney changing their tactics over the next month or so. Both will be coming around to the Huckabee/Paul methods of answering questions, in short just answer the question, don't make it sound like a rehearsed answer...ie...Hillary. Huckabee and Paul both are getting solid mileage via that method. Don't like Huckabee's position on the border, IF Paul targets this, he will gain ground on Huckabee as well as Guilianni. The citizens of the US spoke loud and clear on immigration, they don't want illegals anymore, shutdown the border. One other issue is about to be pushed up front, the economy. Both Romney and Paul should benefit from this, especially Romney.....dman

Bronco Bob

11-28-2007, 10:29 AM

He says no. But I believe that he'll be able to force the issue well into September and make the delegates on the floor decide at convention, thus rendering the question pretty well useless. At that point, the Republican party will have a real "come to Jesus" session and work to bring him into the fold in whatever way that they can. They'll know that they can't win without him.

But right now, I'm of the mind to think that it might not matter.

I can see Dr. Paul coming in 3rd in Iowa on January 3rd, and also 3rd in Wyoming (nobody knows what to expect there or the effect it will have). If he does that, he'll get the Iowa boost. From there, I can see him winning New Hampshire. The next primary after that is the Michigan Primary, which is a mess. In fact, I'll be utterly floored if Ron Paul doesn't win this primary. Like New Hampshire, it's an open primary, but the Democrats have pulled out, leaving their voter base open to register as Republicans to support Dr. Paul. After that is the Nevada Primary... Unbelievable. Then South Carolina, where there is no front runner - Dr. Paul could make a strong showing there. And then finally, the Florida primary, where I think Rudy will see his first win. Then the Maine primary on February 2nd.

It's conceivable that Dr. Paul goes into the February primary with a head of steam. The thing is -- everybody is looking at the national poll numbers, and they don't mean squat. The only poll numbers that really mean anything right now are Iowa and New Hampshire (and arguably Wyoming), because once these primaries are through, they will affect the polling numbers across the board.

I was looking at the combined averages of each state poll at Pollster.com
http://www.pollster.com/ and in Iowa, New Hampshire, S. Carolina, and
Michigan Romney leads and it trending upwards.

Right now Dr. Paul is a distant 5th in Iowa. he is trending upwards while
Guiliani and Thompson are trending downward, but these are at such a slow
rate that I just don't see Dr. Paul passing them in just a little over a month.
I'd say he'd be lucky to beat McCain at this point in Iowa and comes in
at 5th place.

In New Hampshire Romney is trending upwards, Guiliani and McCain are flat,
and Dr. Paul is virtually tied with Huckabee way at the bottom. Again
I don't see Dr. Paul doing better than fourth in NH.

In S. Carolina Romney is spiking sharply upwards, he'll probably win there
as Thompson, McCain and Guiliani are all dropping. Yes Dr. Paul is going
up in SC, but Huckabee is going up at a much sharper rate. I don't
see Dr. Paul doing better than 6th in SC.

Finally Michigan, the trends show Romney going up, Guiliani going down,
with Dr. Paul a distant 6th.

With Romney winning four early states, Romney is going to be hard to beat
later on, especially considering Romney is already in 2nd place in Nevada,
Florida, and California.