The letter this reply relates to can be found here:
Dear Mr. Harwood,
I must say that you write a very eloquent open letter. I am so happy to see someone from the “mainstream” media finally admit that the post debate polls aren’t being hacked, that nothing illegal, immoral or corrupt was going on, and that these results are the legitimate result of political discourse. Your reasoning that political dialogue and democracy ought to be open and participatory is spot on. I must agree with you and hence I have decided to openly participate.
I do appreciate your efforts to try to placate those who have flooded your email box with complaints. This effort alone shows just how much Dr. Paul has grown in popularity over such a short period of time. It must be difficult to open your email box and see dozens of emails from people you know are irate. I’m sure it’s not fun reading through them when all they seem to do is complain, but certainly from looking through these emails you must now understand the level of frustration most of these people have been feeling. You see, if most Ron Paul supporters are like me, they had given up on the political process in this country long ago and now suddenly they have been given hope. They have suddenly found someone that they can get behind and support, someone that is not just the lesser of two evils, and someone with an ideology they believe in. This ideology I speak of is the ideology of the
Now comes the point I must take issue with you on. You, like your colleague before, have made a statement that seeks to minimize the significance of Ron Paul’s message and the force his supporters are bringing to the forefront of this political debate. You make the statement that you believe that Ron Paul’s chances of winning the presidency are no greater than your own. As a matter of opinion, that’s fine. You are entitled to your opinion and it is what it is. As a matter of public record, I find that statement very disconcerting. I haven’t seen any “John Harwood Revolution” signs springing up on the roads. I don’t believe common people are posting John Harwood videos on Youtube. I haven’t seen the John Harwood girl making videos extolling the virtues of John Harwood’s stances on honoring the constitution and limiting government. I don’t recall seeing that John Harwood was running for president on any party ticket, or hearing that he had plans to run for president at all. I find it hard to believe that John Harwood is so certain any candidate would have the same chance of winning as a non candidate, particularly one with the backing Ron Paul now has, that he has posted an open letter saying so. Unless, sir, perhaps you have inside information that has been kept from the rest of us?
I would suggest, sir, that you are doing your best to make sure that Ron Paul has no chance of winning by continuously stating that he has no chance of winning. I would suggest that the media, sir, of which you are a part of, is mis-reporting and understating Ron Paul’s significance in this campaign. Why hasn’t his wins in the straw polls been widely reported? Why is it that suddenly, when he wins or places second in so many straw polls, are these same straw polls of no significance? A few years back, I seem to remember much importance was put on those same straw polls by the very media you work for. I guess the straw polls are only significant when the candidate the media has deigned “has a chance” wins. Why is it that I have to go on Youtube to see video of the masses that show up at Ron Paul’s rallies? Why is it that other candidates can’t get the people out on the streets the way Ron Paul can, and why doesn’t the media report this? And why have the rules to some states’ primaries suddenly been changed at the last minute? Why hasn’t the media reported this? Is it because, perchance, the media gets its money from the same corporations that donate so much to the other candidates’ campaigns while Ron Paul gets all his money from the hard working American people who do the actual voting? These questions go unanswered by those in the media. Instead, the personalities who sit in front of the cameras every night and day tell us that Ron Paul has no chance of winning rather than reporting the events that have been taking place and letting us decide for ourselves who has a chance of winning and who doesn’t. Ron Paul, sir, has a better chance of winning than zero, a much better chance. In fact, Ron Paul’s chances of winning the Republican primary have been put at 4 to 1 by www.sportsbook.com., just behind John McCain and Mitt Romney who come in at 5 to 2. Funny, I didn’t see the name John Harwood even mentioned on that list, not even behind Duncan Hunter who came in at 100 to 1.
You state, sir, that when Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian he drew less than half a million votes. So? When was the last time the system was fair to a third party candidate? Was Ron Paul able to participate in debates against Republicans and Democrats when he ran as a Libertarian? No? Is that because the message he brings to the table, the message of freedom and liberty, of smaller constitutional government, of peace and hope, the message that any good Libertarian would bring to the table, is it because this message is so powerful that it resonates not only in the hearts of Americans, but in the spirit of all human beings and the big government candidates know they wouldn’t stand a chance arguing against such a message? Or is it simply because the Democrats and Republicans want to maintain their power and therefore make the political process nearly impossible for any third party to participate in? Whatever the reason may be, it is time to change the guard in American politics and allow all those interested free and equal access to the political process in this country, just as we are now practicing free and open political discourse by exchanging open letters on the Internet.
You talk of a “scientific” poll of Republican primary voters where Ron Paul only garnered two percent. I say it is likely that “scientific” poll did not take many factors into account. I would imagine they only polled those party faithful who have in the past voted in the primaries. They are leaving out all those Democrats and Independents, Libertarians and members of the Reform Party, those who have affiliated themselves with the Green Party and the Constitution Party, all these people who have suddenly decided to register as Republicans just so they can vote for Ron Paul. These are the disenfranchised I speak of. These are the people who have been looking for someone to vote FOR instead of someone to vote against. These are the people who for years have been searching for a message and now they have found it in Ron Paul. The “scientific” poll you speak of probably did not take that into account and was probably developed so that the Republican Party faithful would dutifully go out and vote for whoever they were told had the best chance of winning. And let us not forget, many Republicans who would not normally go out and vote in the primary will discover the message of Ron Paul, and that will excite them so much that they will decide this year to vote in the primary, and they will vote for the man with a message they can support and understand. They will vote for the ideals they believe this country should stand for. Lastly, let us not forget the apathetic. Let us not forget those like myself who may have given up all together on the political process in this country. Let us not forget the tens of millions of registered voters who no longer even bother to vote. I bet your “scientific” poll forgot them. Should they come out on primary day and cast their votes for Ron Paul, you will likely see results similar to what you have seen in the online poll your organization so generously put up.
You say Ron Paul lacks GOP support because his views are plainly out of step with the mainstream sentiment of the party he is running in. I would suggest, sir, to the contrary. I would suggest that his views are out of step with the elite that have taken over the party he is running in. I would suggest that his views are out of step with the corporate backers of the party who want to be able to buy the party in order to broker power for themselves. I would suggest, sir, that Ron Paul’s views are very much in step with the rank and file who make up the backbone of that party, and the backbone of this country. I would suggest that he is very much in step with those who have to fight the wars, who have to work every day, sometimes two jobs, and live paycheck to paycheck, who have to pay the burdensome income tax they can’t afford, who see the value of the money they earn shrink while the raises don’t come, I believe Ron Paul is quite in step with these people. His ability to raise so much money from what you might consider the unwashed masses, but what I would consider common humanity, proves this. It is all the other candidates who are out of step with their constituents. It is they who ignore the unwashed masses at their peril, and all the corporate donations in the world can’t change this.
You end your letter by suggesting that Ron Paul supporters are a highly motivated minority. I submit to you, sir, that you have miscalculated. Ron Paul supporters are the common folk, and the common folk are just that, common, and they are not a minority. I will repeat myself and tell you what I told your colleague, people are fed up. They are fed up with being lied to. They are fed up with being told what to think. They are fed up with being told that their candidate, their hope for the future, has no chance to win. And they are fed up with being told that their activism and support does not matter and has no meaning.
Mr. Harwood sir, your open letter should be seen as a challenge by Ron Paul supporters. You have thrown down the gauntlet. It is up to them now to show that you are wrong. Ron Paul can win the Republican primary. He can and should win the presidency, for he is the best man for the job. He is the best hope for our country. He may be the best hope for the world. He is a man deserving of our respect and admiration for his principled stance and his record of standing up for the Constitution of the