Ron Paul remains media poison

[Feuer Frei!]

I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted.
On Saturday, the Ames Straw Poll was conducted in Iowa amid huge media interest and scrutiny. The results were enough to force one Republican candidate, Tim Pawlenty, out of the race, and catapult another, Michele Bachmann, into the “top tier.”


There are so many “top tier” stories in the media today that I can barely count them, let alone read them all, and Bachmann is in all of them by virtue of her victory at Ames. The rest of the tier is made up of two candidates who skipped Ames, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
As The Daily Beast put it: “The new top tier of Bachmann, Perry, and Romney — created by Bachmann’s Iowa straw poll win, Perry’s entry into the race and Romney’s lead so far in many national and state polls — has unleashed torrents of talk about the reshaped race.”
Paul’s name was not mentioned in this piece nor in many others. A Wall Street Journal editorial Monday magnanimously granted Paul’s showing in the straw poll a parenthetical dismissal: “(Libertarian Ron Paul, who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second.)”


But “close” does not fully describe Paul’s second-place finish. Paul lost to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast.
If it had been an election, such a result would almost certainly have triggered a recount. It was not an election, however, and that is my point. Straw polls are supposed to tell us, like a straw tossed into the air, which way the wind is blowing.
And any fair assessment of Ames, therefore, would have said the winds of the Republican Party are blowing toward both Bachmann and Paul.
Nonsense, some would say. Straw polls are just organized bribery, with the campaigns buying the tickets and distributing them to supporters. (And, in fact, this is what I wrote before Ames.)
What they really show, many argue, is not where the philosophical heart of the party is, but the organizational abilities of the candidates.


Fine, I’ll buy that. But why didn’t Paul get the same credit for his organizational abilities as Bachmann did for hers?
I am far from a Libertarian. I believe big government is swell as long as it does big things to help the common good. But after Ames, it was as if Paul had been sentenced to the Phantom Zone.
Bachmann appeared on five Sunday shows following Ames. Paul appeared on none. POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt was one of the few reporters to do a separate story on Paul’s showing at the straw poll, but to most of the media he remained an exotic, unworthy of attention.
And I don’t disagree that some of his beliefs — legalizing heroin, the right of states to secede — are strikingly peculiar (though he has been elected to a congressional district in Texas 12 times). But if Bachmann’s victory at Ames was good enough to gain her enormous publicity and top-tier status, why was Paul’s virtual tie good enough only to relegate him to being ignored?


SOURCE

[Schöneboom]

Jon Stewart recently commented on this very issue:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/enter...on-paul/41311/

After watching this, I don't know how much more obvious it can be that the whole game is rigged, in both parties! Our presidents are not elected, they are selected! The media is complicit, telling the sheeple which candidates are worthy of attention. Is it any wonder that empty suits invariably rise to the top? No one proposing truly radical change is allowed to win.

[Bubblehead1980]

Paul is just too real for most people, he's not a jesus freak neocon and his message is far too intellectually taxing for most voters and commentators so like many people who are aware of their ignorance, instead of learning and being open to something new, they try to deride or ignore the message in order to feel better about themselves.I hope that given the dire times, his message will catch on so we can save the republic.

[Onkel Neal]

I like Paul for a lot of reasons, but just can't buy into his legal drugs approach.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I like Paul for a lot of reasons, but just can't buy into his legal drugs approach.

This is one point on which we completely disagree.

[Onkel Neal]

Oh, I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me on that That's fine by me.

[Sailor Steve]

Of course it's fine. If we all agreed there would be no need for any of us.

Off-topic, did you get my PM about my avatar?

[Skybird]

Amongst all names being mentione by Republicans as possible candidates so far, Ron Paul by a very, very wide margin so far is the most acceptable to me, compared to Perry, Bachman, Romney, or May B. Palin.

Since the compromise deal from two weeks ago, Obama can no longer take reelection for granted. He is damaged, and dangerously so. And the public's acceptance of an ultra-conservative, intellectually handicapped Tea Party demagoge a la Bachmann, seems to have seen a massive rise over the past 12 months or so. A year ago, and earlier, I once said that it is unimaginable that such a figure would win a presidential election, and that such a candidate would be guarantee for the Republicans to lose, and Obama would surely win by just not trying to lose, automatically. How it all has changed - I do not rule out any longer that such a candidate would win the race for the WH. I just would stick to my assessement that this would be the utmost possible political disaster, for the US, for the world, for everybody.

Also compared to Obama, Paul seems to be the probably better candidate to me. So far, he maybe reaslly is nthe best name in the race, of both parties.

But does it really matter...? The next president will be haunted by the same needs, the same relaity, the same problems. No problem will change, no pressure will fade out all by itself, no lobbying of ploitics will decrease, no interest party will go away, no network of old fellas and financial profiteers will fall inactive just because an other name moves into the WH.

Another president has little space to improve ways of going. But he has many opportunities to make things even worse. Maybe one really needs to crave for the big stage or needs to be dumb to the bone in order to voluntarily want that job. Whatever - the deep-rooting corruption in the system and the cataclysmic distortion of once meaningful intentions and values setting up the form of the system, will not go away, no matter who rules in the WH.

So, yes, the presidential election is hopelessly overestimated for sure. We will spend attention to it, yes. We will dance to the music and yell our voices into the show as if it would mean anything.

But it is just that indeed: a show, a spectaculum, a circus duel.

[Growler]

The punchline of the whole sick joke is, we all already know that the guy in the White House has no real power anyway, not anymore.

I like Paul, and most of his position as well. And even if he were elected, he'd be lucky to get any of it through a Congress more concerned with winning re-election than actually leading.

[mookiemookie]

While I think some of his positions are loony as can be, I respect the man for his devotion to his principles. We need more politicians like Ron Paul.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Growler

The punchline of the whole sick joke is, we all already know that the guy in the White House has no real power anyway, not anymore.

I like Paul, and most of his position as well. And even if he were elected, he'd be lucky to get any of it through a Congress more concerned with winning re-election than actually leading.

I think you have illustrated a critical qualification for a president. Do they have the ability to "make the deal" with congress?

Any president that thinks they can order congress to do something is in for a rude awakening. The President asks congress and congress always wants something in return. It is called The Deal. Compromise is what the Executive/Legislative branch relationship is all about.

Good presidents can make the deal, poor presidents can't.

It is this demonstrated ability to make the deal that I look for in a potential presidential candidate

[breadcatcher101]

As far as street drugs being legal or not they will still be out there, so might as well make them legal, tax them, and use the taxes for treatments.

[FIREWALL]

I like him but, He shot himself in the foot. Most Americans are not that bright and were shocked by some of his ideas.

[AngusJS]

Ron Paul got 9.1% in that poll in 2008, but Fox couldn't be bothered to even mention him.

He's wrong about many things, but that in no way justifies the treatment he gets.

So much for informing the public honestly, and letting them decide who are the serious candidates.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And the public's acceptance of an ultra-conservative, intellectually handicapped Tea Party demagoge a la Bachmann, seems to have seen a massive rise over the past 12 months or so. A year ago, and earlier, I once said that it is unimaginable that such a figure would win a presidential election, and that such a candidate would be guarantee for the Republicans to lose, and Obama would surely win by just not trying to lose, automatically.

OK - first off - are you saying that the tea party is intellectually handicapped, or simply Mrs. Bachmann is? Second, why don't you use data to support the assertion, instead of just fling out an insult against someone or some group that you disagree with?

Paul is fiscally a tea partier - its socially and on foriegn policy that he differs from most of them. And the thing is - the tea party isnt ultra-conservative - many an independant and democrat consider themselves as part of the movement.