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

it takes no genius to figure out the nature and likely consequences of the american empire as it has come into being---in its current form by degrees since the 1970s, a kind of metastasis of neo-liberal dogshit ideology under the rubric "globalizing capitalism" and justified by the conservative-specific norm of maximizing shareholder returns uber alles (class war) which libertarians have nothing to say about all wrapped up with the neo-con daydreams of an america that was the global military hegemon (iraq war anybody?). people have been saying parallel things from the left for a long time. so if it's not the case that paul's sentences regarding the consequences of neo-con imperialism are some Revealed Wisdom transferred on the Mount, then there's no reason to treat it as if it is more than an aspect of his politics. which is all it is. get to the other stuff and the scary backwater nature of ron paul's rightwing libertarianism gets clear real fast.

btw i understand that paul is skipping florida. the cspan talking head i briefly watched interpreting this---until i could no longer deal with the ambient assumption that one should take the republican primaries seriously simply because they're happening---argued that paul is already giving up any hope of carrying the day, but is still interested in making trouble at the convention. no sure what i think of that...

 

Ron Paul represents the worst in retrograde, reactionary responses to modern issues.

That said, retrograde and reactionary are often a salve to those who don't understand the present.

 

Its not a surprise Paul will skip Florida. It is the first winner-take-all state (with the state penalized by losing half of its convention delegates in order to hold the primary before March).

Florida voters are old...Paul's supporters are young. Florida has a significant Jewish population...Paul is hardly a friend of Israel. Florida has a significant Hispanic population...and Paul is anti-immigrant. In fact, Florida is the first state that comes close to reflecting national demographics, which makes the state, like the country, not very receptive to Paul.

I think his goal at this point is to come to the convention with the second highest delegate count and demand a prime time speaking spot....putting a damper on the per-determined Romney coronation with a speech about dismantling the Fed, disengaging from world affairs and a climactic "we're all Austrians now" causing a shudder among the Romney crowd that the country will view it and think it represents Romney and the Republican Party.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kristol-let-ron-paul-go_617074.html
so it appears that some of the reactionary movers and shakers in the ideological cloud that surrounds the republican political machine has decided its time to begin a little campaign to force ron paul out of the republican party. apparently. personally, i don't care, but nonetheless find it interesting. if this is reflective of more than kristol's personal viewpoint, it smacks of a purge.

 

all these old dinosaurs of the GOP are going about this totally wrong. they dont understand that the ron paul people are the wave of the future. he gets the young vote out, the 30-40 age vote is decent, then it really goes downhill. he gets independents, he gets evangelicals. they should be embracing him and not pushing him out. his following makes up a significant percent of the GOP now whether the like it or not. also, there is a decent amount of his following that absolutely positively WILL not vote for non ron paul GOP nominee. that creates a real problem for them considering there is also a significant portion of the population that absolutely will not vote for a mormon.

they dont realize that the media is becoming irrelevant. the only reason ron can't win the old vote is because these stupid talking heads get on tv and repeat it over and over that he can't win and they believe that because they grew up in an era when the news media actually mattered and was somewhat reliable. so when bill o rly looks them in the eye and say hes dangerous and can't win, then by god they dont even give him a chance.

most older folk dont understand that you can go on a blog, read an article about a candiate or politican, look up the bills they've voted for/sponsored, and then look at the youtube of the cspan of them lieing about issues. it's so easy to catch politicians red handed. that's why we are seeing bills like sopa etc. they are scared to death of the new media because they can't control it. their lies and deceit aren't working anymore.

ron can raise 1-4 million with the click of the mouse and we are told he's irrelevant and can't win. well he's more relevant than cain, bachmann, hunstman, perry, and maybe santorum and gingrich. gingrich can barely raise a million dollars. all his money comes from the super pacs. hell only romney and paul are the only ones on the ballot in VA. what does that say about the ground support and campaigns of the other candidates? it's a joke to keep repeating this he can't win, he's not relevant, when his ideas are actually the new future of the conservative/libertarian movement by any measure i can think of.

 

Newt raised 4 million in one day dude.

I think maybe people should be asking is the GOP looking at this wrong or is Paul? Paul stands for so many things that contrast with the GOP it's really no wonder they don't get behind him. It's like he's applying for a job with a company that not only knows him well but seriously dislikes him.

Paul's a Libertarian, maybe he should have run as such.

 

are you sure about that? also i was making the distinction between pacs and grassroots which shows an entirely different level of support in my opinion. pac stinks of establishment candiate. small grassroots contributions seem like the candidate is less bought and paid for by corporations in my opinion.

i'm pretty sure newts 4 million in one day was from a super pac, but i could be wrong. it's difficult to find the stats on this for some reason but i recall hearing it in passing that he got 1 million in donations 4 quarter and 5 million from a pac of a good friend of his. i guess that would count for 4+ million in one day somehow it doesn't feel as genuine when your rich friends fork over all the money.

 

the republicans are not comfortable with ron paul politically or, seemingly, personally. libertarians, even conservative ones, are not likely to be good footsoldiers and the republicans like machine politics. their commitment to the evangelicals is predicated on the organizational work ralph reed spearheaded in the 90s that made of them the center of the republican machine---a massive co-optation of the christian coalition. and its an impressive machine, to my ongoing horror. but if its the case that this is the center of that machine, then it follows that they have **a lot** of power and---i would wager---maintaining that relationship requires a consistency of conservative ideology that the libertarian set isn't really on board with---witness, for example, the reception paul's isolationist positions get amongst the kill em all let god sort em out set. like happened last night in the latest farce they called the republican debates brought to you by news corporation (wsj and fox...just a couple news outlets)

 

Ok let's say he didn't raise any money... he's still more popular in the GOP then Paul.

 

Paul has the highest negatives among any of the remaining candidates.

The libertarian movement is only marginally larger than it was four years ago, unless you think the the Tea Party is libertarian, rather than a hybrid of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, with the neo-cons being the other significant wing of conservative movement, not the libertarians...at least as far as the Republican Party.

Personally, I would described the Paul crowd more as a cult than a movement, with the libertarians returning to the 15% of the population post-Paul. He is 76 yr old and this is his last hurrah. Who will pick up the mantle? His son?

First the Paul crowd bitches about the lack of media coverage, then bitches when he gets coverage and his extremism is exposed.

The wave of the future is probably more the Obama style web-based outreach which reaches a far wider and diverse audience than Paul, which is why the other candidates are attempting, not very successfully, to copy the Obama outreach model.

If you want to compare:

Obama has gotten far more small donor (individual) contributions than all of the Republicans combined = $41 million
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00009638

Paul has gotten $6 million from small donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00005906

Gingrich = $1.2 million
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/candidate.php?id=N00008333

As to the SuperPacs, they are not directly affiliated with a candidate, but are independent groups, with little or no accountability (you can thank Citizens United for that).

 

i understand that super pacs aren't affiliated, but what i was trying to get at is that i don't think the media differentiates between them and regular donations like they should.

also the fact that obama has recieved 41 million isn't significant in the republican primaries. i understand that's a ton of money but he's really the only one competing. there were 8 republicans fighting for donations? of course the 1 vs. the many gop candiates is going to receive more. if he didn't get the most small contributions that would be a huge fail on his part.

as far as media coverage goes paul was polling 2nd in new hampshire and some stations didn't even list him on the graph of candidates. totally skipped over. HOW DO YOU NOT LIST THE SECOND PLACE CANDIDATE? that's what we are dealing with time and time again. how can you be successful when the media won't acknowledge your legitimate 2nd place standing? jon stewart and colbert have at least acknowledged this phenomenon. its a non stop onslaught from media coverage, to debates, to radio talk shows, and then when he slips up its huge media coverage.

its not fair, it's not legitimate, and it's not accurate. the media and talk show hosts control the entire campaign process. a non establishment candidate has very little chance at breaking through.
--- merged: Jan 18, 2012 5:22 AM ---


until the host made a point of it this is the usual media coverage ron paul receives. 1st, 2nd or 3rd on everything and totally ignored.

 

Hey, I think Paul is in it til the end and will come to the convention with the second or third highest number of delegates and will get some type of presence at the convention and in the platform simply because the Party regulars dont want the Paul crowd to disrupt the convention.

But looking at the Party rules, I dont think he will even get his name placed in nomination at the convention and have the opportunity for nominating and seconding speeches.

And then the Paul movement is dead.

RIP.

added:
Please dont make references to tweets or web polls about the debates. They dont have a shred of credibility other than Paul supporters are the most active, strident, and internet savy.

 

ron paul movement dead, that's what you said 4 years ago

 

Hmmm. I recall saying that he would attempt to build on his 08 run with his PAC and his left over funds and run again in 2012.

 

and what part about that suggests that the movement is dead? he's got nothing but more following and more money this time around.

 

He is currently polling 4th in both SC and FL. He might move up to 3rd in future primaries after the Gingrich/Santorum/Perry shake-out in the next week or two. He might even win a small caucus state.

So he comes to the convention with a few hundred delegates at best. So what? Without him, where is the so-called movement going?
--- merged: Jan 18, 2012 5:52 AM ---
A Wash Post/ABC poll today on a core issue for the election (and the future):

​

So how does this play to the Paul movement?

 

you say the movement is dead, however everything i can measure it by says the movement is alive and growing. most said it would be dead after 08 but it has done nothing but grown. no one can deny it.

his following is young, energetic and the future of the conservative/libertarian movement. it's not going away as the media and establishment would like. 4 years is a pretty significant time frame to still be able to receive this kind of enthusiasm and funding. the old system of politics is fading away. the age of the new media is here and it's not going away. you could certainly see it 4 years ago in obama's campaign. its only getting stronger not weaker.

 

I acknowledged that the movement has grown....marginally and apart from the Tea Party movement of social/fiscal conservatives - not libertarians. There is no indication that it represents the future of the Republican Party, particularly on defense/foreign policy, significant issues for most non-libertarian leaning Republicans.

Overall, Paul and his libertarian extremism comes in third -- behind the corporate Republicans (Romney wing) and the combined evangelical/social/fiscal/hawkish conservatives (Gingrich, Santorum, Perry wing).

IMO, it has hit a glass ceiling, particularly w/o Paul in the future. Foreign policy isolationism (total disengagement), total deregulation (see poll above) and legalizing marijuana is not the future of the Republican party.

The growth of the American electorate is in the independent center and while they may be anti-war, supporting income inequality and advocating for more states rights (i.e. less civil rights, less women rights...), eliminating the govt social safety net, unilaterally reneging on trade agreements etc (issues that you apparently dont want to address) is not a winning strategy.

You can quote me in 2016.

 

Ron's movement this year is dead in the water. I agree he'll get delegates, I suspect a lot from Texas. But given the way the rules are I agree with redux... he'll have little control at the national convention. I think Ron's work right now is to help his son into a position to move the platform he's built forward in coming elections. Personally I think Ron's age is showing. He's taking days off in between primaries at a time when he's needs all the votes he can get. He knows he's not going to break the level of support his platform currently has by much, though he might get a few more % points. No he knows he not going to be POTUS running as a GOP (heck the GOP can't stand him) and he's not going to run as a 3rd party because that would kill any chance his son has in 2016. I think the real game is Rand Paul 2016.