ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

An Open Letter to CNBC Editor's Open Letter To Ron Paul Faithfuls

Updated on November 10, 2011

In recent taudry news...

The managing editor of, Allen Wastler, decided to publish a public response to the floods of emails, calls and letters generated by disgruntled Ron Paul fans who threw a fit when an after debate poll was removed after it showed massive support for Mr. RP.

A link to the letter can be found here, Open Letter To Ron Paul Faithfuls

Since reading this open letter, I found myself a little peeved at the lack of creativity or logic in Mr. Wastler's letter, and have decided to post my own open letter in response to his open letter. I would like to include that this letter in no way suggests that anyone should or shouldn't vote for Ron Paul.

Dear Allen Wastler, Managing Editor of

I was recently looking through daily news from my friends, as I normally do during my afternoon break from the kids and work, when I came across a link to your "Letter to Ron Paul Faithfuls". I must say that I was definitely speechless after reading your letter, though not because you said anything all that insightful. In fact, I found your letter rather lacking for substance or even creativity.

It struck me as rather interesting that the editor of such a supposedly popular news media website, could really be so crass. I mean seriously, there are dozens of reasons you could have chosen to tell your readers why you took down the poll that showed that Ron Paul was leading in political popularity.

You blame the voters, who voted on your poll. You even blamed those that linked the poll to their friends and family, offering them a chance to vote as well. You completely spit on those who take the time to pay any attention to your website. You say that it is their fault the poll was taken down, because they got enthusiastic? Really?

I was also surprised by your lack of awareness for the very things you wrote down. You said, and I quote

"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."

DId you not notice that the voters of the poll are your audience? Or maybe you would just like to stay in denial about the fact that pretty much anyone who's actively paying attention to the news medias or political journalism, are a large majority of these "Ron Paul Faithfuls". Maybe instead of bashing an enthusiastic group of individuals who are passionate about their politics, you could consider basing more of your news on what your audience actually wants, instead of what you want them to want?

You said yourself that more than 7,000 voters took your after debate poll. Do you really think it to be that odd that 75% of those voters actually enjoyed or preferred Ron Paul's debate over any of the other candidates? Because that can be translated to mean either:

  • You don't feel your own station even has 7,000 viewers...
  • You don't think 7,000 people actually watched the debate..
  • You don't think your actual viewers know how to take polls or they don't have any interest in your polls...
  • You think people are to inept to make a truly informed decision about a candidate, so they most have voted in error...

They say that for every 1 vote, 13,000 votes are represented in most polls (even the unscientific types). If 75% of 7,000 voters came to take your poll after the debate, then I'd imagine that there is real support out there for Ron Paul in a genuine manner. Either that, or there is simply a total lack of support for any of the other candidates. Either way, you would do better to write a "Note to The Non-Active Voters" who didn't come to your poll and stand up for anyone, or anyone other than RP. At least if you had written that note, it would've gone quietly off into the night where no one cared.

Instead you chose to attack the one candidate with true active support right now (cause I don't see any crowds shouting "vote Romney!" or "Gingrich for Prez!"). Were you just trying to bring in more traffic, even if you had to use a despicable manner? Have times really been that tough for your station since they decided to be Anti-RP? No press is bad press... or so they say. Though I hope you are aware that all those "Ron Paul Faithfuls" who flooded your inbox when you so crudely removed the poll, are likely going to continue to flood your inbox with new and refreshed colorful verbage to let you know just how they feel about your reasons for taking down the poll.

It wouldn't have been so bad if you would've used reason, or maybe just lied like every other mainstream medias. Yet you wrote things like:

"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."


"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."

Did you really mean what you said? Did the voters who took your poll not count because other polls may have been different? Is that really fair? I mean, can you consider that the other polls may have just as carelessly removed their polls or changed the results? For that matter, I find it hard to believe that the "legit" polls don't show Ron Paul leading, and I respectfully ask that you show me which "legit" polls have shown him with less support. You can post it in my comments. =)

Furthermore, did you miss history class in school? If I'm not mistaken, it was "the few" who started the revolution that created our great democratic republic. It was "the few" enthusiastic fighters that engaged and educated the public about novel ideas like civil rights and freedoms. It was "the few" that stood up and said, "We Will Not Accept Tyranny and We Will Not Submit.". There were 7 main founding fathers out of 55 delegates. They were "the few" who influenced "the many". Even in total, only 55 people represented the rest of the people in this nation at that time, and the population was at least 4 million people when the revolutionary war, that "the few" encouraged, took place. Most of that population was either on board, out in the wilderness where no one cared or too busy with their lives to be involved in politics (which would've have taken a lot of effort owing to their slow methods of communication and news at the time).

The few has always represented the many in our country, because it is the few who pay attention. It is the few who make it their business to stand up for the many by standing up for themselves. When "the few" known as our founding fathers fought for what was right and did everything to spread the word, they succeeded in bringing more freedoms and opportunities to their fellow citizens all over. Is it not those "few" who created what you now call "the many"?

Just to drive the point home a little further, was it not "the few" who later fought for women's rights? The few who fought for an end to racial bias? The few who called for peace in times of war?

Even if you are going to stick with that argument, by taking down the poll because you didn't like the results, you are the minority, the "few" who is domineering over "the many".

So, to end this open letter to your open letter, I want to state that I feel you used very poor judgement in publishing your open letter so carelessly. I hope in the future you will be more open to the passions of others, less bias and more tactful.

With that I saw "Good Day". Shh! I said "Good Day!".



    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • JON EWALL profile image

      JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa


      NOT TOO MANY WATCH the liberal properganda produced at the station.