What is the answer to this?
that Paul received more media attention last time. I think the media sidelined him primarily because of his philosophy, which they do not agree with and would hate to see catch fire. (This is predicated on their perception that Paul's ideas COULD catch fire.
The secondary reason is that Paul does not strike them as "presidential" and therefore they suppose he has no chance of winning. The elements that combine to equal "unpresidential" are Paul's age (76), his somewhat stoop-shouldered posture, his slight build and "pencil" neck, his scratchy and often whiny-sounding voice, his often non-macho body language (not alpha male stuff), his unwillingness to moderate his views like most politicians do when they pander for votes, and finally his tendency to regularly interject non-mainstream ideas as if he doesn't care about alienating voting blocks and is therefore not serious about winning.
New Hampshire and Ecuador.
Oh my - some of the best stuff I've read. Ron Paul fans get your popcorn.
"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
The answer to this story is that the author is right. Especially with the last sentence. Ron Paul's views are now well known and many of them have become mainstream. The question now is whether or not the other candidates are only saying these things to get elected. Personally, I believe they are. The author states that if we want the media to pay attention now, it is time for Ron Paul to do something unexpected, like win Iowa. If he wins in Iowa, there will be a huge media storm around him. Like always, we need to push our ideology on the American people to try to educate them, but now is the time to push to WIN the nomination. We now have to shift gears away from mere ideology to why Ron Paul is the best candidate to put those values in place. Now is the time to make our move, we are winning! This is a positive story.
but I think we'll see a different reaction from the media to Ron Paul's win in Iowa(I'd love to see a 'media storm' lol). So let's say the voting goes RP 1st, Cain 2nd, and Romney 3rd. I'm guessing the headline the next day will be "Cain beats Romney in Iowa" with very little to no info on Ron Paul's win. I hope I'm wrong but from what I've seen from the corporate media in the last few years nothing surprises in how low they'll go to keep the masses of sheeple ignorant of Ron Paul.
Lost interest? When were they ever interested? Their too corrupt to be interested.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: