Response to's Allen Wastler: "Open Letter to Ron Paul Faithful"

Note: I've decided to include this portion of my response and put it up on top. I was going to omit it until I realized how important this is.

This is a summarization of the full intention of this open response. As we are all aware... If you support someone or something, you do it with intentions of making a difference or a change.

In this case, supporters for ANY of the candidates could be "beating the [insert candidate] drum" (fashioned from Wastler's comment which you will read later in this letter). The truth of the matter is... They AREN'T beating any drum. The supporters of Mitt Romney could easily put themselves out there and hustle a bit but they aren't rushing or scampering to get any results.

It's almost as if those who support Ron Paul know something that the supporters of the other candidates do not know. It seems as if this "something" is really big and they feel very threatened by it. And THAT is why Ron Paul supporters are actively campaigning. They'll do whatever it takes.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Mr. Wastler, The people have spoken. Your excuses for censoring Ron Paul hold no merit. You obviously are not a Ron Paul supporter. I will now quote and respond to your "Open Letter to Ron Paul Faithful" dated Oct. 11th 2007 at 7:21pm ET.
Wastler: You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on (the) World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.
I know we are... and you should tip your hat to us. After all, there would not have been such a massive influx of SUPPORT by Ron Paul supporters if we weren't truly concerned with the aim of your game. As I see it... you're censoring his chances of becoming president. I'm sure that all of my friends (Ron Paul supporters) feel the same.
Wastler: That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.
Yes, we know that it is based on your first hand "experience". As I've mentioned, we do support Ron Paul and will go to any length to do so. To clarify: We are very concerned with our futures and the futures of our children. If we weren't, then we'd simply vote for Romney or Giuliani or Clinton. I mean, what would be the difference? We are either blind or actually concerned... it is the latter I can readily assure.
Wastler: Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

Yes, they may be unscientific... I agree. However, so is the entire CNBC website (if in fact the polls are subject to hacking... then so would CNBC's servers, according to you, right?). We haven't seen any group hacking anything. You know it and I know it. Next...

I also agree that it is only a "quick temperature reading of your audience". That's exactly what we've expressed: We support Ron Paul while you and the global corporation that you work for do not.

Wastler: So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.
Hmm... Ron Paul has that much support? I wonder if that's because there are concerned individuals out there who act soley upon their own will to protect the future interests of themselves and their loved ones. I'm talking about real families here who feel threatened by the mass censoring of important issues ranging from the presidential election to lies that the government of the U.S. have been directing your corporation to tell "We the People". In case you're not aware... there would be no Mainstream Media OR government if not for "We the People". - Keep that in mind.
Wastler: Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.
Yes, Paul is a fine gentlemen with very impressive substantial backing... So why do you say that the polls have been "hacked"? You're actually contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. You know as well as I do that it wasn't hacked. I'm sure, now that I've said this, CNBC will come out with "new evidence proving that the polls, all around the internet are being hacked". They weren't hacked, stop lying. You were directed to pull the polls because Ron Paul might get some notariety. Which, if you would actually open your eyes and do some investigating of your own... you'd realize that Ron Paul really IS the only real hope that we have to keep us, as a nation, from going under with the ship.
Wastler: The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.
Your email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages? Oh, what a shame... I guess that's because there really is massive support for Ron Paul. So why have you censored him from potential Ron Paul supporters? He must really be like cryptonite to the government and/or Mainstream Media. I mean, why else would you censor a "fine gentlemen" who has support from such an audience that you tip your hat to? Someone's lying here and I'm starting to smell something rotten.
Wastler: But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.
How can we ruin the purpose of the poll? There has NOT been any hacking. It has been much more honest than the way you rob and murder the truth.... Many truths that I will not even delve into in this missive. Did I just hear you say that our honest campaigning doesn't serve "our" (as in CNBC's) intentions? What intentions are you speaking of? Keeping the true numbers of Ron Paul supporters from the public? You're doing a great job. I commend you and CNBC's entire staff for working soooo hard to keep important issues away from the general public. What would really "serve our readers", as you say, is if you'd give the readers the option to choose their candidate rather than you choosing it for them!
Wastler: Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again. Sincerely, Allen Wastler Managing Editor,
Nearly ALL Ron Paul supporters have a SERIOUS issue with your decision to censor the polls and even on the television. You said you'd take it down again... and we obviously will coerce you to scamper just to write another letter full of excuses that you can't back or support in any honest forthright manner.
Submitted by Jonathan on Thu, 11/15/2007 - 11:00pm.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.