editorial draft regarding media blackout

J

jds8288

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
42
My intent is to get this into an editorial or 2.

Critiques?

Thanks!

Ron Paul's message is popular. This is undisputable. The Ames Straw Poll just occurred on the 13th. He essentially tied with Michelle Bachmann (less than 1% difference with each receiving record amounts of Ames Straw Poll votes). Also, look at the comments section of political articles or videos. Look at the results of any online Presidential candidate poll. Take note of the fact that active military members have OVERWHEMINGLY donated to the Paul campaign compared with any other candidate including Obama.

However, the most obvious news in the Paul community since the Ames Straw Poll is the blatant lack of just that...news. This should bother everybody, Paul supporter or not and I'll try to explain why.

The obvious fair and expected reaction in the days right after the Straw Poll would be that he gets almost as much attention as Bachmann. In 2007 with a much more distant, although unexpected, 2nd place, Mike Huckabee received plenty of media attention. This has not been the case for Paul. Bachmann was featured in a handful of high profile TV interviews the day after the Ames Straw Poll. Paul? None. Early on, some news headlines acknowledged "Bachmann wins, Paul close second" but they became more and more rare as headlines like "Bachmann wins Straw Poll; Perry enters race" and "Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third" became the norm.

Some may say I'm "whining" because who I support missed out on a little bit of media coverage. Well it wasn't a "little bit". And I'm here to educate, not whine.

Hopefully now, you are as curious as I am as to why Ron Paul has been highly ignored by the media. This becomes most obvious in a CNN discussion which begins with the host saying "We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race." Then a Politico guest says that the media avoidance is because, and this is the key statement, "The media doesn't believe Ron Paul has a...chance of winning the Iowa Caucuses, winning the Republican nomination, or winning the Presidency, so we're going to ignore him."

Did you catch that? The MEDIA ignores Ron Paul because THEY BELIEVE he is UNELECTABLE. I think you should feel insulted. You should feel insulted that the mainstream media thinks you cannot think for yourself. That you cannot decide on your own who YOU believe is the right person to become president. That you cannot decide who is electable. They will decide who is electable for you.

This is not an uncommon theme among political analysts, devout Republicans and Democrats, and those who are not familiar with what Ron Paul is all about to say that he is "unelectable".

But where did that notion come from? Did you decide that after watching him speak, really understanding his message, or reading one of his books? Or did you get that idea because you "heard" was "unelectable"?

It should be apparent that there's a big deal going on here. Why shut him out when he's obviously popular with many people; has a top notch campaign; and can fundraise among the best? What is there to be afraid of? Ron Paul is a steadfast protector of the people not government or corporate interests. He does not pander; he won't tell you what you want to hear. Instead he will tell you what he thinks you NEED to hear. He will not be bought and sold. Imagine how threatening that may seem to those well connected bigshots who depend on political games, when someone who refuses to play along is heading toward the White House. Lobbyists avoid his congressional office because they know there's no point. He's too principled.

Notice I haven't even got to his issues. The issues are secondary. First and foremost Ron Paul is NOT about Republican vs. Democrat or even Republican vs. Republican. It's about Freedom and liberty vs. the status quo. A principled statesman vs. the establishment. The people vs. the government.

Ron Paul has had the same messages since he entered Congress in the '70s. This election cycle many discussions have moved towards his unchanging discussions such as The Federal Reserve. Others are pandering. Ron Paul is not.

You owe it to yourself to really find out what Paul supporters find so appealing. Understand why the issues are often secondary to his quality. Be sure to watch some videos. Google Ron Paul.

P.S. As I'm finishing writing this I've learned that Jon Stewart did a hilarious piece on the absence of media coverage on Ron Paul that is certainly worth checking out.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think this looks great! Do you ever watch Alex Jones on YouTube? Some people don't like him, but he sticks to the facts more than any mainstream journalist I've seen. Anyway, he reported today that Ron Paul basically won that straw poll in Iowa due to the fact that Bachmann paid for 4,000 people to go! Of course they'd vote for her after she's paid their way. In my book, without those paid-for votes, Ron Paul won again! But, of course the mainstream media just ignored that little fact.
 
pen_thief said:
I think this looks great! Do you ever watch Alex Jones on YouTube? Some people don't like him, but he sticks to the facts more than any mainstream journalist I've seen. Anyway, he reported today that Ron Paul basically won that straw poll in Iowa due to the fact that Bachmann paid for 4,000 people to go! Of course they'd vote for her after she's paid their way. In my book, without those paid-for votes, Ron Paul won again! But, of course the mainstream media just ignored that little fact.
Click to expand...

Funny thing. I almost never watch/listen to Alex Jones but I listened to the whole show today. I actually got hooked last night for a bit when I saw the "14 reasons not to vote for Rick Perry" or whatever the title was. Never had thought about the idea that presidential candidates are "groomed" from many years out.

Anywho, yes Paul voters are much better at thinking for themselves and knowing why they came to the Straw Poll, etc. However, while Bachmann did subsidize the tickets 100%, Paul did subsidize them so they only costed $10 (instead of $30) and as the SP got closer there were more and more opportunities for ticket holders to get people they knew to come for free. And if you got a friend to go last minute there was no cost to them. But RP supporters obviously spent plenty on those tickets.
 
pen_thief said:
I think this looks great! Do you ever watch Alex Jones on YouTube? Some people don't like him, but he sticks to the facts more than any mainstream journalist I've seen. Anyway, he reported today that Ron Paul basically won that straw poll in Iowa due to the fact that Bachmann paid for 4,000 people to go! Of course they'd vote for her after she's paid their way. In my book, without those paid-for votes, Ron Paul won again! But, of course the mainstream media just ignored that little fact.
Click to expand...

We paid for our voters to go too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Americans OVERWHELMINGLY Oppose War With Iran - New Poll!
Replies
9
Views
137
acptulsa
acptulsa
Occam's Banana
Thomas Massie introduces "No Funds for Foreign Abortions Act"
Replies
10
Views
138
TheTexan
TheTexan
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Preparing the Famous "What If" Speech
Replies
7
Views
304
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
ronpaulhawaii
Ron Paul BBQ team looking to expand event size
Replies
6
Views
211
ronpaulhawaii
ronpaulhawaii
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Why Ron Paul Is the Only Politician World Leaders Should Emulate
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Back
Top