Topic: Politics
Washington Post Blasts Ron Paul The Washington Post wrote a negative and misleading article about Ron Paul with the intent to throw dirt on his good name. Did they succeed? NO...by Freedom Writer
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Washington Post wrote a negative article about Ron Paul. This is not surprising... With Ron Paul primed to do well this week against McCain in the Idaho Primary and Washington Convention it makes sense that the mainstream media would start hurling mud...
On that note, the Washington Post article was written with the intent to throw dirt on Ron Paul's good name. Did they succeed? A resounding NO...
This article has since been picked up by the Chicago Tribune, The Seattle Times, and CBS News and more... So what was the article about?
Here is the title, author, and link:
Ron Paul's campaign is a family business, FEC shows
By Matthew Mosk, The Washington Post 8:43 AM CDT, May 27, 2008
"Rep. Ron Paul (R- Texas) has built a national following largely by preaching an isolationist foreign policy."
Is Ron Paul an isolationist or a non-interventionist? Which one is it? Where did this journalist go to school? Does he know the difference between the two? Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. You would think that a journalist who writes for the Washington Post would know the difference...
"Stick with your own kind, says the maverick presidential candidate."
Wow, did Ron Paul really say that? The answer is NO and Never... So, why did this journalist write this? And what was this supposed to mean? Hmmm, "isolationist" + "stick with your own kind". See a trend here? Nice picture that is being painted. The problem is that neither one of those comments could be further from the truth.
"And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports."
Wow! $169,000! Let's see how this was distributed according to the Post:
"Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages his MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. Paul's sons Rand and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events."
2 grandaughters received under $20,000 total between them. Hey Grandpa, couldn't you open your wallet up a little bit more?
His daughter and grandson received a paltry $5,500... So where did the rest of the money go? Who is keeping track of this? Here's the answer:
"Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting... Campaign aides said they discussed the possibility that involving so many family members could create the impression that nepotism was driving hiring decisions, but ultimately they saw no problem with the practice."
Well, obviously, Ron Paul isn't hiding this information. And what about the Kennedy family, do you think that they take care of each other? What about the Bush? Cheney? McCain? Is it possible that they never profited from political lobbyists and friends... (Anyone ever hear of Halliburton or Keating Five?) So, why is Ron Paul being singled out for having family members working on his campaign? Here is the answer that the Post presents:
"You always think about those kinds of things," said Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman and, it just so happens, the fiance of one of the candidate's granddaughters (he has been paid $54,573). "But his family is very important to him. There is something important about having a family element involved in a campaign. Having people around you that you can unconditionally trust."
The Post goes on to add the following:
"Paul has received relatively few votes in his insurgent bid for the Republican nomination, but he has attracted an extraordinarily dedicated following that has flooded his campaign coffers with more than $30 million in donations. Even after releasing a video on his Web site in March indicating that he no longer expected to win the Republican nomination, Paul has continued to collect and spend those riches."
So, now he's an "insurgent" (what a nice thought). And he only had relatively few votes (since when is 1 million relatively few...?). And yet with those "relatively few votes" he received relatively over $30 million dollars! And to think this money came from mostly relatively grassroots support. And none of them were relatives. Now that is relatively amazing!
The Post continues:
"Most of the money has gone to typical campaign expenses on television, radio and Internet ads, on travel expenses, and on political advice from consultants and strategists. But unlike other presidential candidates, Paul has also made room on his payroll for his extended brood."
Most has gone to typical expenses (I would say that 99.5% is "most"), while the money from the campaign that Paul paid his "extended brood" (why not say family?) accounts for a whopping 0.5%! Wow, is this what they call abusing campaign funds? Its not like he took furniture from the White House and brought it to a house in Chappaqua, New York...
The Post continues with their startling accusations...:
"There are no laws prohibiting candidates from hiring relatives, though the Federal Election Commission does require family members to be qualified for the job and be paid the going rate for their work. Melanie Sloan of the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said her organization has twice issued reports critical of the practice among members of Congress."
Since "there are no laws prohibiting candidates from hiring relatives" that means that no laws were broken So, what is their problem...?
The onslaught continues:
"This was never intended to be a family business," Sloan said. "The reason this is troubling is that it's not clear to donors whether their campaign donations are really going to support the candidacy or to support the family."
I never realized I was supporting the Ron Paul family with my donation. Thank you for clearing that up. Does this mean that Ron Paul used those funds to supplement the $3 million dollars he just made from his number ONE New York Times best selling book? I can't beleive he went through all this trouble to take $169K in donations to support his family. Washington Post: Get real!
"Sloan said this was not the first time Paul has hired relatives to perform campaign work on his behalf. The group found payments to daughter Lori Pyeatt during his three previous congressional races, and payments to grandson Matthew Pyeatt and daughter Joy LeBlanc during Paul's 2004 congressional campaign."
Not the first time... C'mon, this is grasping at straws. Create your straw man so you can knock him down. This report is pathetic. What about the $120,00 and vacation trips that McCain took from his role in the Keating Five scandal...?
"An added concern with the presidential campaign, Sloan said, is that Paul has fundamentally transformed his bid for the White House into something more ephemeral. Spending by the campaign has slowed considerably over the past month. Paul spent $470,862 in April, leaving him with $4.7 million remaining...The way Benton explains it, the candidate has "acknowledged that he is not going to be the nominee" but is "continuing a positive respectful campaign to influence the policies of the Republican Party....And this "second phase," as Benton describes it, is financed by the money raised largely during the first phase, when people were sending contributions to fuel Paul's presidential ambitions."
Ron Paul supporters do not have a problem with that. I've donated to Ron Paul and I have no problem with how he is using the contributions. It is money well spent! Talk about change. We are seeing real results.
And, now, they finally they mention the book.
"Now, as he tours the country, Paul is drawing attention to his book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," which currently ranks seventh on the New York Times best-seller list... The parent company of the book's publisher, Hachette Book Group USA, also turns up as a vendor to the campaign. The Paul campaign paid the publisher $1,115 in April. Asked about the expense, Benton said the campaign "purchased about 60 books to give to supporters... That practice is also legal, as long as the candidate does not derive any personal benefit from the sales."
Excuse me, but it was ranked number one only a few days ago. He made $3 million dollars but they focus on the fact that he spent $1k in a perfectly legal transaction. So, what's the issue? Another straw man... Or is it that there is no issues with Ron Paul and they (the mainstream media) are trying to find one?
The article goes on and on making ridiculous inuendos that border on the retarded... If this is the best that the mainstream media can do to muddle Ron Paul's good name well, all I can say is that it is a very lame attempt at best.
By the way, I met Ron at a rally and at a book signing. He had his family with him both times. He even introduced his family. I even met his wife Carol and chatted with her. She was one of the nicest and most geniune person you would ever want to meet. His family were down to earth good people.. In my opinion, they deserve every cent of the $169k for all of the work that they do. Is the Washington Post insinuating that Ron Paul should have hired strangers? (They'd probably find fault with that too...)
The Washington Post should be ashamed of posting an article like this. And especially about someone with the integrity of Ron Paul.
And to think the Washington Post used to be a real newspaper at one time. What a shame...
A footnote... Recall when John McCain (yes, the preemptive candidate) asked for MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS FOR HIS CAMPAIGN? Here is an excerpt from a Washington Post article by the same journalist that appeared only a few months ago:
"Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio."
McCain asked to "Gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money" Compare this to the high crime committed by Ron Paul who barely paid relatives to work on his campaign. Asking for millions of taxpayer dollars is no big deal, right...? It is only "our taxpaying money" that he was requesting... (And to think his wife has millions and millions of dollars...).
And you know something, Ron Paul, by principle, would never ever accept government matching funds.
The McCain article continues:
"If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has built a national following largely by preaching an isolationist foreign policy. Stick with your own kind, says the maverick presidential candidate.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Freedom Writer only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Freedom Writer is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
He gave money to his family? Our campaign donations gone to his family? Why, that's... that's... THAT'S...
...something my mom would do. However, unlike my mom, he paid them low enough that he continues to prove to me that when it comes to the issue of wasteful spending, he does practice what he preaches. Not like we didn't know that before. It was one of the things we loved about him.
So he has $4.7 million remaining. Sounds far better to me than Hillary's huge debt. Those people rack up big spending on their campaigns, running out of money and they expect me to believe they know how to handle the economy? When they can't even handle their own campaign finances? I donated a small amount to Ron Paul, but it was the only time I ever donated to a political campaign. The fact he still has that much money left tells me my donation went to the right guy.
That rag passes itself off for a newspaper? What trash! They should change their name to the neo-con press.
I donated well over $1000 to Ron Paul's campaign and I don't have any regrets about it. I'd do it all over again. He is the only candidate in either major party that I would even spend a dime on.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
