(See in situ)


Yeah, I know, here come all the minus votes, but hear me out.

I think Ron Paul is wrong about the reason he is given so little time and attention. He says it's because "they" don't want to hear the truth, it's because he wants to change the status quo, and "they" represent the status quo (welfare state, banking/monetary system, foreign policy).

But I know lots of people who don't benefit from the status quo who are, or at least have been, absolutely convinced that Ron Paul has no chance and he can't win. They're not afraid of what he has to say, they agree with it, at least mostly. They just think he's too old, the personality is not right, the views are too libertarian (not for them, but for others), etc.

I have no reason to believe that this is not also true for the decision-makers who decide how much time he is given in debates, and how much attention he gets on the news, etc.

I mean, just compare how much more time and attention he's getting, generally, in debates now than in 2007/08 (some of which he was not even in). Compare how much more attention and time he's given than Gary Johnson.

Look at how the Cain coverage changed once he started climbing in the polls.

My theory explains all that much better than his theory does. I mean, okay, maybe there is a little bit of that going on, but clearly the most important factor in determining time/attention is performance in these polls.

Everyone knows and understands the chicken/egg problem. The media expects Perry to do well, so he gets a lot of coverage, and presto, he climbs in the polls. But in terms of Gingrich and Cain recent rises, and now Paul's, the media really had little to do with it. Once the numbers start climbing however, then they jump in.

This is all about to be proven. See how much attention Ron Paul starts getting not only on cable news, but also on the main broadcast news channels. How will he explain that?

Paul's theory reminds me a little of the people who argue that oil companies are responding for raising gas prices. But they're silent when gas prices drop, begging the question, if they're responsible for the prices, why are they lowering them?

Same story here, or it's about to be. I predict Ron Paul will start getting respect commensurate to his recent climb in the polls, which will beg the question, if they're afraid to hear him, why are they letting him speak so much? To discount him now would mean discounting everyone else except Romney.

We'll see.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."