Wow, things are getting ridiculous. Ron Paul's ability to bring in at least a million dollars on any given day, which used to be newsworthy, is now being ignored just like his straw poll victory in Ames. I've been keeping an eye on Google News, and so far there have only been a handful of reports on his birthday money bomb, of all them by minor blogs. Not a single mention has been made in any major news site. Amazing. Even better, hackers temporarily took down his campaign site in the middle of the donation drive, and even that fact is not enough to merit mention, apparently.
So, yeah, things are getting pretty damn blatant these days. I just keep crossing my fingers hoping Paul can come in a solid second in a poll somewhere. I'm not quite ready to hope for first, but if he could place second it would be hard to ignore him. I do think Bachmann is already fading with the arrival of Rick Perry. We need a new poll to see how the aftermath of the Iowa straw poll is playing out.
Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Ron Paul ignored by media
I've been reading up on this whole debacle heavily ever since the Ames Straw Poll, and have been incredibly irritated and frustrated by the pure disrespect given to Ron Paul by a multitude of media outlets. It became so blatant that even Jon Stewart did a segment on it on Monday's Daily Show.
So, today, the big news was, hey, the media is ignoring Ron Paul, and the argument became whether or not he deserved to be ignored. Arguments in favor included his poll, his strong fundraising, the difference in the level of professionalism between 2011 and 2007, and the fact that he has been right about the economy over and over.
The arguments against him basically amount to: he doesn't have a chance no matter what. And that's it. The most obnoxious piece I saw was probably one that claimed the media was actually doing its proper job, namely filtering the news. Since when was that the appropriate mission of the media??? I thought they were supposed to be unbiased. But seriously, a large majority of the pieces talking about Paul being ignored slipped in subtle little digs about him even in the midst of discussing the media blackout.
Something else I think I've figured out now, however, is that a lot of people are actually discussing this issue because they know they'll get a ton of hits from Ron Paul supporters. They don't even really care about him one way or the other. I was going to suggest ignoring the negative pieces, but I don't think I can do that in good conscience, since I think it is important for readers to see that Paul does have a lot of support.
Instead, I have a few suggestions for my fellow Paulistas when commenting on these pieces. First, make sure you get your facts straight. I read one comment in which someone claimed Ronald Reagan endorses Ron Paul in 1988. That's obviously nonsense, since George Bush, Reagan's own VP, was running for president that year. Second, try not to be too rude. :) I know it can be frustrating, but it's important to present a good face to the public, as we don't want to drive potential supporters away. And finally, maybe it would be better to figure out who is just fishing for hits, and ignore them, but keep an eye on the major sites.
So, today, the big news was, hey, the media is ignoring Ron Paul, and the argument became whether or not he deserved to be ignored. Arguments in favor included his poll, his strong fundraising, the difference in the level of professionalism between 2011 and 2007, and the fact that he has been right about the economy over and over.
The arguments against him basically amount to: he doesn't have a chance no matter what. And that's it. The most obnoxious piece I saw was probably one that claimed the media was actually doing its proper job, namely filtering the news. Since when was that the appropriate mission of the media??? I thought they were supposed to be unbiased. But seriously, a large majority of the pieces talking about Paul being ignored slipped in subtle little digs about him even in the midst of discussing the media blackout.
Something else I think I've figured out now, however, is that a lot of people are actually discussing this issue because they know they'll get a ton of hits from Ron Paul supporters. They don't even really care about him one way or the other. I was going to suggest ignoring the negative pieces, but I don't think I can do that in good conscience, since I think it is important for readers to see that Paul does have a lot of support.
Instead, I have a few suggestions for my fellow Paulistas when commenting on these pieces. First, make sure you get your facts straight. I read one comment in which someone claimed Ronald Reagan endorses Ron Paul in 1988. That's obviously nonsense, since George Bush, Reagan's own VP, was running for president that year. Second, try not to be too rude. :) I know it can be frustrating, but it's important to present a good face to the public, as we don't want to drive potential supporters away. And finally, maybe it would be better to figure out who is just fishing for hits, and ignore them, but keep an eye on the major sites.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Tim Pawlenty -- Good riddance
I'm already completely sick and tired of all these stupid articles about Tim Pawlenty. As I said yesterday, his campaign was doomed after placing a distant third in the Ames Straw Poll. And of course, today, he dropped out in humiliated defeat. But there are a million articles about it, many claiming his exit "changes the landscape" of the race for the GOP nomination. The guy was polling 2-3% nationally! His entire campaign was a creation of the media, who desperately wanted a phony-baloney, principle free candidate to ascend to prominence.
The simple fact is, the clown has absolutely zero to offer, and thankfully, voters saw through his say anything to get elected facade. So he drops out, and his tiny percentage of the vote gets absorbed into the margin of error. He meant nothing, and his exit means nothing.
The simple fact is, the clown has absolutely zero to offer, and thankfully, voters saw through his say anything to get elected facade. So he drops out, and his tiny percentage of the vote gets absorbed into the margin of error. He meant nothing, and his exit means nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)