Chicago Tribune: Paul Big on Net, Media Don't Notice
by Clarance Page
August 8, 2007
Of all the interesting little fish swimming beneath the currents of the major candidates in this presidential campaign season, none is making waves as surprising as those kicked up by Rep. Ron Paul.
The Texas Republican, who embraces a libertarian point of view, has been riding an unimpressive 2 percent in the polls, but if the presidential election were held in cyberspace, Paul would probably win hands down.
Paul's supporters flood online polls, such as the unscientific survey ABC News invited viewers to join after the Republican debate last Sunday. Yet, you could barely find the Texas doctor in the network's after-debate coverage, despite the vigorous applause he ignited with his call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Another Wet Blanket
I perceive, from the attitude of Mr. Page's article, that if a candidate intelligently addresses topics such as the FED, the IRS, the causes behind inflation, national sovereignty, the Constitution, etc. - that candidate has no chance of winning.
Mr. Page says:
"So why, I am often asked, doesn't Paul get more coverage? The short answer is the Catch-22 trap of win-ability. As news media allocate precious time and space, our attention gravitates toward those who have a prayer of winning. And, of course, without coverage, one's chances of winning are even worse."[emphasis added]
He is right about the lack of coverage diminishing one's chances of winning an election. He is also implicitly correct about the media determining, to a great extent, who will win the election. What he's not saying is how the news media determines the candidates who have "a prayer of winning". Do they depend on traditional polls, where questions are slanted and results weighted according to the preestablished ideology of the media themselves? I myself have been a participant in media polls before this election and I can assure you first hand that the questions are often slanted so that any response other than the desired one makes the participant appear to be a total jerk or, at the very least, willfully ignorant. Online polls are not used in the determination - the media appears to want them as rubber stamps in support of decisions already made. No, it appears that the decision as to who has "a prayer of winning" is made long before we get to see the candidates. This fact is blatantly obvious each and every time the MSM makes the distinction between "front-runners" and "second tier candidates" - a distinction which was made as early as last year.
Mr. Page subtly discredits and blatantly pigeon-holes Ron Paul supporters. He states:
"Judging by my contacts with Paul promoters -- in person and through e-mails -- they seem to be largely young, male, independent-minded, leave-us-alone libertarians who like Paul's tiny-government agenda.
Which leads to another reason why I think Paul faces trouble in moving his campaign to the next level of public attention: organization. You can't win political campaigns without it, but organizing libertarians is about as easy as herding cats. Angry cats."
Mr. Page seems to feel that Ron Paul's campaign lacks central planning and appeals only to a small segment of angry (emotionally unstable), Libertarian (irrelevant), teenage (immature) boys. While we may lack central planning, I think we've organized ourselves pretty well, don't you? There are thousands of Meetup groups all over the US - we even have people overseas trying to help us out. The message of Liberty is a powerful motivational and uniting force. Moreover, Mr. Page's feeble attempt to pigeon-hole us into some easily dismissible category is quickly, obviously and verifiably false, as a quick look at the ongoing online rally or any YouTube rally video will plainly indicate.
We're not all immature, angry libertarian kids:
We're young people, tired of being lied to, tired of being told what to think, looking for something solid to hold onto.
We're old people, hoping for a change that will make us proud to call ourselves Americans again.
We're Republicans tired of big government and high taxes.
We're Libertarians, seeking freedom from endless government oppression.
We're Democrats sick of the war and corporate welfare.
We're Constitutionalists, longing for a return to sound government principles.
We're economists, worried about economic downturn and government and bank monopoly money meddling.
We're business owners who can't compete against larger companies with their government funding and government contracts.
We're poor people who can't seem to get a toehold on the American dream and are tired of government dependency.
We're middle class people who can no longer afford a home of our own.
We're upper class people with the foresight to know that our lot is tied to the well-being of all men.
If Dr. Paul does not win the election, it will not be due to a lack of planning, nor because our number were few, nor because the issues we raised were unimportant. It will be because the desires of the American people were no longer relevant to the election process and we are no longer in control of our own destiny.
Same piece was also in the
Same piece was also in the Springfield News Leader this morning.
Chicago Tribune Article
The same opinion piece was in the Danbury, Connecticut, News Times. Who knows how many read it! My partner pointed it out to me. I expect more and more of these types of things.
R. Match