this is why "Paultards" hate the MSM

[dvictr]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20066480-503544.html

God forbid they have a headline that Ron Paul is in third place.. At least acknowledge that this is poor journalism, and clearly bending the facts to push an agenda.

A new Gallup poll shows that former governors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin remain the presumed frontrunners in the GOP presidential race, but little-known Herman Cain ties for third.

The potential field of Republican presidential nominees has narrowed in recent weeks, leaving Romney with 17 percent support and Sarah Palin at 15 percent. Cain is essentially tied for third place in the Gallup poll at 8 percent. ---Rep. Ron Paul received 10 percent support, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich won 9 percent in the poll.

So Cain ties for third, when he actually came in 5th?

this is the type of article and news coverage that Ron Paul is up against, the media will not help his campaign gain any stream.

 

[Travis]

Why do you presume that there is any sort of collusion against Ron Paul?

And considering how cutthroat news reporting is how is it that they could collaborate on something like that?

 

[dvictr]

Why do you presume that there is any sort of collusion against Ron Paul?

And considering how cutthroat news reporting is how is it that they could collaborate on something like that?

"Poll: Herman Cain not far behind Romney, Palin" - this is the sort of news headline that propels candidates into the front runner status. Why would they not have the a headline "Ron Paul, not far behind Romeny or Palin". If people sitting on the fence or others that have never heard of Ron Paul look up to CBS/ Fox/ CNN and see that they are reporting on someone that is a clear major candidate, the support becomes organic.

no, i dont think there is a colluded effort to discredit RP.. but all the editors acting independently create the effect of pushing him out of the main stream.

i think some of Ron Paul's views on foreign policy/ domestic policy/ monetary policy are cynical.- generally distrustful of government integrity and sincerity, i agree myself.
the comments he makes "attacking" both sides of the political structure dont fit into the standard mold and in the past it has been easy to ignore him as a fringe candidate or recluse. CLEARLY the Gallop poll has him in third place but yet they chose to not acknowledge his grassroots progress. it appears silly when tout a candidate getting 2% (Pawlenty) and ignore the front runner among confirmed candidates

 

[hgc]

They say Cain is "tied" for 3rd because 10, 9 and 8% are within the margin of error. They focus on Cain because he's the new kid on the block.

I can see that this is going to be a long slog for the Paulites (I'll refrain from the epithet so victimitiously bandied in the thread title), who will see collusion among the powerful at every turn that their beloved candidate is ignored or dismissed. If he ever gets vote totals to match the enthusiasm, he'll get plenty of notice in the press.

 

[Puppycow]

Why doesn't Paul run as a libertarian?

Even Paul supporters ought to know that he can't win the republican nomination.

BTW, if you adjust for name recognition, Cain is actually in first place. (I don't think he can really win though. People don't know about his weaknesses yet.)

 

[zaphod2016]

Why do you presume that there is any sort of collusion against Ron Paul?

I do not presume there is collusion.

This is what I fear is happening:

1. The majority of Paul's positions are either extremely controversial (e.g. end the drug war) or extremely confusing (e.g. monetary policy) to the average voter.

2. Because of this, Paul was branded "not serious". The majority of media outlets, the majority of editorial writers, and the majority of posters here at the JREF are quick to repeat this claim: Paul is not a "serious" contender.

3. Given the prejudicial "not serious" label, all future reporting on Paul is completely agenda-driven. The above is a great example- he came in third, but the story somehow massages this reality to promote Cain.

In the interest of fairness: some of this may be because Paul is considered "old news". He was a big story for part of the 2007/2008 election cycle; the media might just be looking for the next story.

Paranoid delusions, you say?

Compare the media reporting on Ron Paul circa summer 2008 to the media reports surrounding Rudy Giuliani at this same time. Paul was described as a "no chance in hell fringe candidate" while Giuliani was still boasting his "America's Mayor" sash, some 7 years after-the-fact. The reality of the situation is obvious: BOTH men were SLAUGHTERED in the Florida primary, and yet, 99% of media outlets (mass media and independent media alike) reported the same cultural zeitgeist- the story of "fringe-candidate Paul" versus "America's Mayor".

I realize most of you don't particularly care for Paul, so you probably skip these threads, or come looking to play "whack-a-mole" with the various crazies who get attracted to Paul. That's understandable.

Just remember: its not just Paul they do this to. Ask Gravel, Nader or Kucinich and they will have a similar tale of woe.

tl;dr:

If you label every controversial candidate as "wacko fringe", this is what you will be left with, election after election after election.

 

[dvictr]

If he ever gets vote totals to match the enthusiasm, he'll get plenty of notice in the press.

this is the chicken and egg dichotomy.. you NEED notice in the press to get votes

 

[zaphod2016]

Why doesn't Paul run as a libertarian?

Because he doesn't want to win anything.

Ron Paul's goals:

1. Get son elected (check)

2. Raise money from the "paranoid fringe" (check)

3. Get on tee vee to promote new book (check)

He is extremely effective at what he does, but you aren't going to see a "serious" libertarian-minded candidate until the baby boomers have died off.

Sorry. Want to speed up the process? Shoot the elderly.

 

[hgc]

If you label every controversial candidate as "wacko fringe", this is what you will be left with, election after election after election.

And if you prop every argument up with a strawman, you won't hold win any debates.

It's hard to listen to Paul's position on monetary policy, the Federal Reserve and the gold standard without noticing that something is seriously amiss.

 

[hgc]

this is the chicken and egg dichotomy.. you NEED notice in the press to get votes

He got plenty of notice last time. He's been relegated to also-ran, protest-candidate status. One reason was that it has been noticed that his large number of supporters and excellent fund-raising abilities do not translate into votes. Who got all the press in 2008? Giuliani. And no one voted for him.

Why does Paul not attract votes, despite the intensity of his appeal among his fans? I can only guess, and would say that his persona and positions are ones that appeal to a permanently size-limited constituency: libertarians. No matter what happens, the political philosophy that positions limited government as a Platonic ideal, in opposition to all reality, will never have a broad appeal.

 

[zaphod2016]

And if you prop every argument up with a strawman, you won't hold win any debates.

It's hard to listen to Paul's position on monetary policy, the Federal Reserve and the gold standard without noticing that something is seriously amiss.

As I mentioned in my above post, candidates like Ralph Nader, who have no stated position on the Federal Reserve (as far as I know) face the same issue.

For clarity: I'm not suggesting we should vote for every "fringe" candidate who comes along, I'm saying we should hear them out without polluting that discussion with prejudicial language.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm wondering if Paultards should be a protected class? It seems that everyone is out to get them. Especially that mean old main stream media.

 

[tyr_13]

As I mentioned in my above post, candidates like Ralph Nader, who have no stated position on the Federal Reserve (as far as I know) face the same issue.

For clarity: I'm not suggesting we should vote for every "fringe" candidate who comes along, I'm saying we should hear them out without polluting that discussion with prejudicial language.

Many of us who have 'heard him out', usually because a friend has become an ardent follower because of some of his useful positions, have found that he's, taken as a whole, unfit for office with some absolutely terrible stances.

He's good for getting attention for things like less military spending, but he's bad because some people think we can go onto a gold standard.

 

[hgc]

As I mentioned in my above post, candidates like Ralph Nader, who have no stated position on the Federal Reserve (as far as I know) face the same issue.

For clarity: I'm not suggesting we should vote for every "fringe" candidate who comes along, I'm saying we should hear them out without polluting that discussion with prejudicial language.

Yes, but Nader had plenty of other wacky things. I'll be the first to acknowledge that the mainstream politicians are also propounding wacky positions. I've also stuck up for wacky candidates in the past.

I supported Jerry Brown in 1992, and was increasingly disappointed by his inability to put make a sensible presentation of himself as a mainstream candidate and get away from the outsider/weirdo brand -- and I blame him for it. He made no effort to ditch the iconoclast schtick, and fly in formation at the head of a broad political flock. I need in a candidate not just policy positions that I agree with, but also an ability to be an effective political leader and builder of constituencies. Absence of those qualities, the favored policies will not be achieved. In any case, I'm glad to see Brown back in the governor's mansion in California, and hope he succeeds.

 

[Arcade22]

Too bad it's impossible for Ron Paul to win. His monumental stupidity would have considerably hastened the collapse of the United States.

 

[Tricky]

Why doesn't Paul run as a Libertarian?

Because he doesn't want to win anything.

Ron Paul's goals:

1. Get son elected (check)

2. Raise money from the "paranoid fringe" (check)

3. Get on tee vee to promote new book (check)

He is extremely effective at what he does, but you aren't going to see a "serious" libertarian-minded candidate until the baby boomers have died off.

Sorry. Want to speed up the process? Shoot the elderly.

Actually it is because Ron Paul wants to keep his Senate seat. If he abandoned the Republican Party in order to essentially assure the GOP's defeat in the national election, it is unlikely that Texas Republicans would elect him again. I don't doubt that a similar situation exists with Rand. They need the GOP for the state elections and can't become "temporarily Libertarian" just to run for president.

 

[maxpower1227]

Actually it is because Ron Paul wants to keep his Senate seat. If he abandoned the Republican Party in order to essentially assure the GOP's defeat in the national election, it is unlikely that Texas Republicans would elect him again. I don't doubt that a similar situation exists with Rand. They need the GOP for the state elections and can't become "temporarily Libertarian" just to run for president.

House*

 

[Chaos]

As I mentioned in my above post, candidates like Ralph Nader, who have no stated position on the Federal Reserve (as far as I know) face the same issue.

For clarity: I'm not suggesting we should vote for every "fringe" candidate who comes along, I'm saying we should hear them out without polluting that discussion with prejudicial language.

Or perhaps you could accept the position that, apparently, "fringe" candidate supporters are forbidden from taking: that their candidate has been rejected because people have looked at what he actually stands for, what he actually said, and because people don´t agree with those positions.

 

[zaphod2016]

If he abandoned the Republican Party in order to essentially assure the GOP's defeat in the national election, it is unlikely that Texas Republicans would elect him again. I don't doubt that a similar situation exists with Rand. They need the GOP for the state elections and can't become "temporarily Libertarian" just to run for president.

Absolutely true. Forgot to mention this.

I've also stuck up for wacky candidates in the past....[but] I need in a candidate not just policy positions that I agree with, but also an ability to be an effective political leader and builder of constituencies.

Valid point. I am so preoccupied with being "right" I forget that a leaders job is to...well...lead. In the 21st century, this demands a certain degree of media savviness that Paul just ain't got. He's a cranky old man with a squeaky voice.

 

[Thunder]

this is why "Paultards" hate the MSM

no, Paultards hate the MSM because they are conspiracy theorists who think the mainstream meadia is part of some secret global conspiracy to enslave the world.