By now, it’s no secret that I have been curiously intrigued by Ron Paul. He is running for President, and hasn’t a Jesus’s chance in Hell™ of getting the Republican Neocon party nomination. I continue to follow his thoughts and comments on all of the issues, and I must say that one commenter on my first Ron Paul post was right; the more I learn, the more I like him as a candidate for President.
The video below is an inspirational (at least for me) compilation of Ron Paul moments and quotes. He sincerely understands what so many people ignore in these elections, the role of a President: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The completely irrational part of my brain holds onto a small hope that current polling frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain, are 2008’s Howard Deans, while Ron Paul is come-from-behind-Kerry in the primaries. But current polls still put Ron Paul at nothing above 2%, which is behind, at least, a mormon, an actor that hasn’t done any campaigning or debating, and a son of a preacher - living in the 21st century - who thinks evolution is a bunch of crap.
There have been numerous slights against Ron Paul by the media. Comments on message boards deleted, entire pages removed, polls changed after the fact, etc. In explanations of these actions, most of it is blamed on so-called Ron Paul spammers, who allegedly bombard message boards and online polls, and skew the results and the conversation. I mean, these would have to be some highly organized groups of individuals operating with military precision and an empire’s reach. There’s a virtual plethora of conspiracy theories coming from both sides - Ron Paul supporters claiming a conspiracy among Mainstream Media (MSM), political parties/groups, and corporate America, and Neocons and Media claiming a conspiracy among a small group of Ron Paul supporters and campaign lackeys…
One thing is for sure: Ron Paul supporters are effective at coordinating and mobilizing online quickly. For the three GOP debates so far, Paul has won or placed high in most of the unscientific online surveys including ABC’s, MSNBC’s, FOX’s, and unscientific polls conducted on a number of blogs.
Of course!! This is the only explanation. It can’t be that the people who are actually paying more than a fruit fly’s amount of attention to what’s being said are finding Ron Paul to be the clear winner. Scientific polls that survey the willfully ignorant and party faithful (a truly significant statistical sample) will tell us who really articulates the best message in the debates.
While all this is going on, everyone is failing to acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room, in the form of the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Nobody really knew about (or remembered, depending on your age) Ron Paul until his explosive and thought-provoking comments in the first Republican Primary debate. In a field of 10 candidates, he is afforded unequal and minimal time to express those comments by moderators (read: MSM). Why? Well, the scientific polling that is done by organized pollsters shows Ron Paul consistently around 1 or 2 percent. So the MSM debate moderators use this as an excuse to devote more time to those with higher poll numbers. Are you seeing the circle developing?
In an effort to break into mainstream American consciousness and get higher in the polls, candidates need high poll numbers to begin with. You see, in order to get higher poll numbers they need to be covered by the MSM, but in order to be covered more by the MSM, they need higher poll numbers.
So the self-fulfilling prophecy is the idea that they don’t need to cover someone like Ron Paul, because he is not getting very high poll numbers, and when they don’t cover him, less people become aware of him and his message, and his poll numbers stay low. Failing to acknowledge their own role in affecting knowledge, awareness, and ultimately, poll numbers, the MSM simply perpetuates their image as a mouthpiece for the establishment, powerful, and elite.
Barring a catastrophic event, on the order of 9/11, that thrusts Ron Paul into the national consciousness, the MSM can simply wash their hands of him (how dare I suggest that Saint Rudy benefits from “the attacks” more than anyone else). Unless they are forced to cover him, they won’t.
Is Exposure Good for Ron Paul?
That being said, perhaps the scrutiny that comes with more exposure is not what Ron Paul needs or wants. For someone like me, who only started paying real attention to politics shortly before he/she was able to vote, Ron Paul’s run for presidency in 1988 is a virtual non-event. And the relative isolation he has endured (or enjoyed) in a small district in Texas since then is working in his favor, in a way.
He is being attacked from the right, by the likes of hate-monger Michelle Malkin. He is being attacked from the left, by phenry on Daily Kos.
Both sides are misconstruing or misunderstanding Ron Paul’s libertarian bent. And both authors fault Ron Paul for the people that come out in support of his candidacy or ideals, or otherwise find him appealing. Malkin for the “9/11 conspiracy theorists” and phenry on Daily Kos for the likes of Larry Pratt, “secessionists“, and being on the same radio program as Prussian Blue once was.
I say that they are misconstruing his position because they repeatedly equate giving an interview or a speech to questionable or fringe groups as reason to question Ron Paul himself. And yet, people at Daily Kos aren’t at all bashful about attacking BushCo when they do the exact opposite - refuse to allow certain people (read: anyone who might disagree with them) access to them, their speeches, or their interviews. After at least 7 years of that nonsense, pontificating your message in front of any free person willing to listen is, apparently, a wholly unfamiliar concept.
As another example, phenry at Daily Kos, willfully ignores Ron Paul’s reasoning on the Defense of Marriage Act, and unnecessarily simplifies the issue to a fault, by attacking him for supporting it. Phenry doesn’t care that his priority, limiting the power of (federal) government, is a more appropriate concern with regard to that act than changing the definition of marriage as currently recognized by the states. Phenry also uses this as a reason to attack Ron Paul on the issue of gay rights, but oddly, does not applaud Paul for his apparent defense of gay rights when he refused to support the constitutional amendment that would have abolished same-sex marriage. I mean, as long as you’re oversimplifying the issue, it seems that applauding him for this would be the only logical reaction. No?
One thing that is unavoidable is that people will buy the oversimplified crap that these guys are selling. Just like Iraq “had ties” with Al-Qeada, Ron Paul has or had “ties” with some questionable organizations, publications, and people. And when it comes to your image in front of the American people, as we have seen in the past, the frailty of these ties does not seem to matter. The order of magnitude or degree is unimportant, it is a yes or no question, black or white.
And if that’s the case, will Ron Paul be able to hold up under that scrutiny should he become a central figure in the race for President?
It is worth mentioning that some have accused Ron Paul of making some highly questionable racist comments in the past. They cite mostly second or third-hand sources. And the comments seem diametrically opposed to even some comments that appear in the video above. But Ron Paul’s explanation, as given by the people attacking him, doesn’t seem to answer the questions that would undoubtedly grow in number and ferocity should he break through as a candidate to be reckoned with. But it is my suspicion that this may fall into the same category as the other fallacious arguments put forth by those on the attack.
Here’s hoping he reaches a level where the MSM and the people feel it worthwhile to ask him those questions, make him answer, and feel it worthwhile to really listen when he does. We’ll see.
) enjoys widespread support, with 66% saying that it is morally acceptable for the state to commit revenge killings under the euphemism of ‘punishment’. But hey, at least that’s down from last year’s high of 71%.
Loading ...
