Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

Only a small percentage of his emails are asking for money. Usually his emails consist of discussing his debates and his political views. That said, I have donated money to his campaign and will continue to donate. He is the only candidate worth a damn, and I'm happy to support him.

 

Two or three e-mails a week for four years even when he is not campaigning, many in his own words?

Sounds more like indoctrination than information.

 

it is what it is. he is a politician, sometimes i think people are jealous of ron paul and the following he has. many young people support him like it or not, and they are very active and give money.

 

Whats to be jealous of?

That he has a cadre of young supporters and little else. His base is so narrow he has no chance of winning the nomination.

 

The older folks, and the people who need the status quo to be continued are worried about him. I agree that there needs to be a shakeup in the way we are spending money, but also collecting it. Ron Paul needs to create a plan to transition the US from the unsustainable mess we have now to a better country. Not just, cut, cut, cut and let the rich buy and own everythingand then hand it down to their kids tax free...

 

Like father like son. Protecting the citizens of this nation's rights and freedoms. Rand Paul's vote defeated the fascist amendment that democrats were trying to push through that would have allowed U.S. military to arrest and hold indefinitely any American on U.S. soil for any reason.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=399

 

I'm glad the amendment was defeated, and wait to see what will happen now (it's unfortunately not over yet).

Credit where it's due, Rand Paul stood on the right side of this one.

It looks to me as if most voting for the amendment were Republican, so claiming the Dems were trying to push this through is perhaps misleading.

Full voting here .. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00217

 

I've always found that lying works best when facts are fuzzy. You're not very good at it, Eddie.

Rand Paul's statement is hilarious. He makes it sound as if he defeated the bill single-handledly. Pompous little ass.

 

The whole bill sounds like GWB's vision of freedoms in the US under the Patriot Act... you know an oxymoron.

 

ummm he basically did do it single-handledly. it was going to easily pass by voice vote where no one knows how individual senators voted. he forced an actual role call vote. try reading the article.

 

Ummmm...its not an article, but a self-promoting press release. It may or may not have been adopted by voice vote and the fact remains, its defeat was primarily the result of Democratic votes (50 out of 59 NO votes) so I would suggest there is plenty of credit to go around. But in either case it would have been most likely made moot by a subsequent compromise amendment on the issue.

 

Even with the latest Cain shake-up, there is a simple reason why Paul cant win the nomination.

He has the highest negatives among Republicans likely to vote in the primaries.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/151325/R...ney-Acceptable-Nominees.aspx?utm_source=alert

 

The question that nobody is asking is "why does he have such high negatives?" Is it because the GOP is afraid of real fiscal conservatism? Is Ron Paul not bought out by banks and corporations? Does Ron Paul have some positions that Democrats would be in favor of instead of Republicans?

 

One of the reasons might be Paul's positions on issues like abortion, de-criminalizing marijuana, and same sex unions which are a negative with social conservatives in a way that could appear to be attractive to the left - if the left wasn't aware that Paul is clearly not about protecting the rights of the individual. He's perfectly okay with outlawing these and a host of other constitutionally protected freedoms, as long as the government in power resides at a state capitol vs the federal capitol. I think a lot of Republicans fail to understand this.

 

It is mostly policy-related, but I think his persona comes into play as well. He has a perpetual scowl on his face, he lectures on the Fed (most eyes glaze over), he talks down to people about the Constitution and he just comes across as negative and condescending.

Unlike the last 70+ yr old president who was perceived as amiable and relatable and not a grumpy old man.

 

Most of Ron Paul's views fall outside of the acceptable spectrum of debate enforced by existing right wing power structures and the right wing media. You have to follow a very specific script of demonstrably false ideas in order to be accepted, and he operates off script for things like the national security state, the wars, drugs, and the like.

What makes it all funny, though, is that he's doing so well in straw polls. Maybe it's internet libertarians, but he's actually quite popular on the ground. I'd like to see him get the nomination just to completely fuck up the scripted election. Can you imagine Ron Paul coming at Obama from the left on the war, drone attacks, spying, and his other major failures?

 

A bit off topic but I've always wondered at the right turn some liberal candidates take when the get behind the desk at the Oval Office. Is there some truth to the rumor of the brief that awaits them? The one that reveals foreign policy secrets unbeknownst to the rest of us which cannot be altered or compromised with? The one that sends all good intentions flying out the window? If Ron Paul were to be elected would he be any different than Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan? When it comes to foreign policy and national security, are they all the same guy following a predetermined script? It sure looks like it.