Ron Paul's candidacy

Proton Soup

ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...reagan-library

Dotini

If you are fighting and broke, you will never accomplish a thing.

Ron Paul has been consistently right on the two biggest issues of our time - war and debt - and the others have all been off base.

I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.

Another valuable quality of Ron Paul is that he points out the many ways we are not following the Constitution. We should either follow it, amend it, or burn it up altogether. Take your choice and do something, because to say one thing in our highest document and do another in our actual practice is insane.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Ivan Seeking

Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.

Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.

I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.

Freye

Even though he is anti-abortion, he's for allowing individual states, as opposed to the federal government, to decide their own rules on abortion.

lisab

The results Proton linked to indicate to me that Evo is right. Paul's supporters are more likely to vote in these unscientific polls, but I don't think he actually "won" the debate.

Evo

LOL, an online poll. His army of online (followers) do this to every online poll, which is (as mentioned in an earlier article) why the media doesn't mention him. The votes are bogus.

Proton Soup

eh, i think there is more to it. there is a bit of an intentional shut-out on Paul in the major media. like here, Washington Post won't even list Paul as a loser. what's up with that? even Newt is up there, and Newt is the guy who's entire campaign team ran out on him recently.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...fpAK_blog.html

Evo

He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.



This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1XOzYsvrY

Chi Meson

I already voted for Ron Paul, in 1988. It was the first presidential election I ever voted in, and I essentially cast my vote for "someone else."

Ron appears to be the most Libertarian person in the field, and if all the people who called themselves Libertarian actually were libertarian, he would be the front-runner.

Dotini

Ron Paul has gained name recognition from and since the '08 campaign. He's doing even better this time around, not least because he's been so right on the war and debt issues, and all the others know it and are trying to co-opt elements of his message. It matters not to him or me if he's nominated or not. The important thing is that mainstream Republicans and thinking Democrats increasingly resemble Paul, jettison the neocons and neoliberals, and return a semblance of sanity to foreign and monetary policy. That's the hope, and that, folks, is the thin reed upon which our future viability depends. We will assuredly get the government we deserve.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Evo

Uhm, yeah.

http://www.wctv.tv/wswg/headlines/Ro...128652403.html

Proton Soup

well, i see what you're saying, but i'd suggest to you that when media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.

it's going to be interesting to see how the future political landscape develops, as a new generation of americans more and more disconnected from traditional media.

Topher925

I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.

Whether you like him or not, he has been right about debt issues and all that which was already stated above. I also believe in (most) of his intentions and ideas for improving the economy. I wouldn't say he's my #1 choice for 2012 but I would gladly take him over ANY other Republican candidate right now except for maybe Buddy Roemer, jury's still out on that guy.

Dotini

I'm glad you partly agree!

If we were electing the Scientist-in-Chief it would be another matter. But evolution, abortion and drugs pale in significance to war and debt. Remember, if you are fighting and broke, you are going nowhere fast.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

Evo

Conspiracy theory? You know that's against the rules.

Lol, I was being dismissive. But you know that.

ThomasT

This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no moreso than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?

Freye

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.