Ron "Trumps" the Huckster, again! (will skip Huckabee Forum)

[kathy88]

Given this move by the campaign I think we need a forum wide moratorium on bitching at the media for "blacking out" Paul.

Because he misses one stupid forum? Okay, that gives them the excuse to absolutely not ever mention him. You're right.

 

[tbone717]

Because he misses one stupid forum? Okay, that gives them the excuse to absolutely not ever mention him. You're right.

He doesn't get mentioned because he is not creating news Kathy. You don't give the same speech over and over and expect coverage. They have done NOTHING significantly new in the past month. Even the rallies with 3000 people are old news. If the news media isn't covering you, then you have to do something to get them to cover you.

 

[cheapseats]

Good find. And honestly I understand the producers reasoning. Not so much that it is unfair, but more so that it just doesn't make good TV to have three candidates there and one on a monitor.

From the article: ""Unlike some of the multi-candidate debates and forums, we have always provided you with exactly the same amount of time as any other candidate as is the commitment in our format to all candidates," wrote Huckabee, himself a presidential candidate in 2008. "All candidates were invited at the same time and all have made changes in their schedules and arranged to be present. No other debate or forum involving all the candidates on any network [has] allowed a candidate to appear via satellite."

With respect, this is RATIONAL MORAL THINKING, FOR ORDINARY TIMES.

These are EXTRAORDINARY times.

Some very successful Comedians and some very long-running News Programs ROUTINELY have guests participate by satellite, while others are in studio. ESPECIALLY on financial programs do CEO's and Gurus participate via satellite. TIME=MONEY.

WA votes in the morning. Logistically it would be tough to get from there to OH in the same day given the time difference and all, but nonetheless I think they are missing out on an opportunity here.

He is jet-setting by chartered plane, yes?

But WORK the "tough logistics" angle, to call out Media Meddling/Manipulation. Like Huckabee didn't KNOW his forum would conflict with Caucuses? Does Mike Huckabee think HE is more important than Rank & File Washingtonians? Play UP that this one tireless man is TRYING to include his message wherever messages are being discussed, that more minds brought to bear on our problems is BETTER for America and Americans, yada yada.

Question the Christian's INTENT. Question the Christian's METHOD. Question the OTHER Candidates. Do THEY, boo hoo, think it would be UNFAAAAIR for unmistakably earnest Ron Paul to participate by satellite?

Not EVERYONE, but some should certainly slap a label on this particular elephant: How afraid of this man ARE you guys?

This is CRISIS TIME . . . like a thread title sez: ALL HANDS ON DECK.

Or this is NOT a critical period. We HAVE time and space to adhere with precision to arbitrary forum rules. This line of thinking ALSO implies that we can scale back DHS and TSA. It implies that EPA is largely unnecessary. We can RELAX about the deficit. If this is not mamby-pamby-rules-out-the-window CRUNCH TIME, then like Scarlett O'Hara, we can think about unpleasantries tomorrow.

And the general perception that voters will take away from this, is that he is not in the race. Like it or not, many people will come away with that thought.

Or get in a huff, thinking Ron Paul was conspiratorially not invited.

There is ABSOLUTELY "conspiracy"...read that, planning among co-conspirators...to marginalize Ron Paul. Even NON-Supporters call it out. But floating the WRONG conspiracy...they purposely didn't invite him...is shot to shit upon discovery that he declined the invitation, tainting ALL conspiracy theories.

Voila, no conspiracy.

Wag the dog.

 

[tbone717]

I have appointments, but I will conclude with this. There is one event prior to Super Tuesday for him to be in front of the camera and make himself stand out to the voters in those 10 states. Instead he will be in WA who votes at 10AM in the morning. The others will be there, Paul will not. It defies all logic, especially when coupled with the fact that he has only visited 3 of the 10 states and 2 of them (OK and VA) he only visited briefly.

I'm not negative, I am realistic. I cannot look at the information before me and logically conclude that the campaign is in this to win. For the longest time I would urge people to follow the campaign's lead and trust in what they do. But I am sorry each of us has a breaking point, and this is the proverbial straw for me.

 

[cheapseats]

I have appointments, but I will conclude with this. There is one event prior to Super Tuesday for him to be in front of the camera and make himself stand out to the voters in those 10 states. Instead he will be in WA who votes at 10AM in the morning. The others will be there, Paul will not.

Bottom line.

It defies all logic, especially when coupled with the fact that he has only visited 3 of the 10 states and 2 of them (OK and VA) he only visited briefly.

Not all logic, IF there is a strong probability of winning Washington. He DOES need a win. But fuck possible, is winning Washington PROBABLE? Is it a GOOD BET?

I spy POSSIBLE damage control in trying to SHAME Huckabee & Fox into letting the "quixotic long shot" participate by satellite.

 

[D.A.S.]

Let's break down the math for logistics to attend Huck's show.

Huckabee's forum will be taped at noon Saturday and will air that night and twice again on Sunday. Ohioans will vote two days later along with voters in nine other Super Tuesday states.

The taping of Huck's show is at 12 NOON Eastern on Saturday in Ohio. Since Paul will be in Washington, that's 9AM Pacific for him. To make it to the forum, Paul would have to fly from Washington state to Ohio either at 5-6 AM Pacific on Saturday morning or on Friday evening.

So far, the last event Paul has scheduled for WA is the Seattle Town Hall Meeting at 7:30 PM Pacific, so he will probably be done around 9-9:30 PM Pacific. Suppose he flies out of Seattle at 10PM, he arrives in Ohio around 1AM Pacific, which is 4AM Eastern. Then, he has to get some decent sleep in order to be at the forum at 12NOON Eastern.

It's possible that Paul also wants to be around in WA on Saturday to address a caucus or simply to hold a rally when the results are announced, in order to thank his supporters there. Why would he do that? It's called respect to people who worked their asses off for him locally and putting them above some FOX interview. I imagine the campaign is expecting a good night in WA, so if past is any indication, Ron will probably hold a rally when the results are announced, like he did in Iowa, like he did in NH, etc.

Huck knew his forum would interfere with WA caucuses, and Ron is choosing to put them above the Huck Forum. Ron's Campaign asked Huck to accommodate via the satellite, and other candidates are free to ask for the same if they want to be in WA, but they chose the Huck forum instead. Why? Probably because they understand that WA may well go to Ron Paul, and they are already trying to discount WA results and the importance of that caucus.

So, to those of you accusing Ron and the Campaign of not playing to win -- and there seems to be a lot of you in this thread -- I ask again, how is tending to the WA Caucuses over Huck's forum NOT playing to win???

 

[azxd]

Let's break down the math for logistics to attend Huck's show.



The taping of Huck's show is at 12 NOON Eastern on Saturday in Ohio. Since Paul will be in Washington, that's 9AM Pacific for him. To make it to the forum, Paul would have to fly from Washington state to Ohio either at 5-6 AM Pacific on Saturday morning or on Friday evening.

So far, the last event Paul has scheduled for WA is the Seattle Town Hall Meeting at 7:30 PM Pacific, so he will probably be done around 9-9:30 PM Pacific. Suppose he flies out of Seattle at 10PM, he arrives in Ohio around 1AM Pacific, which is 4AM Eastern. Then, he has to get some decent sleep in order to be at the forum at 12NOON Eastern.

It's possible that Paul also wants to be around in WA on Saturday to address a caucus or simply to hold a rally when the results are announced, in order to thank his supporters there. Why would he do that? It's called respect to people who worked their asses off for him locally and putting them above some FOX interview. I imagine the campaign is expecting a good night in WA, so if past is any indication, Ron will probably hold a rally when the results are announced, like he did in Iowa, like he did in NH, etc.

Huck knew his forum would interfere with WA caucuses, and Ron is choosing to put them above the Huck Forum. Ron's Campaign asked Huck to accommodate via the satellite, and other candidates are free to ask for the same if they want to be in WA, but they chose the Huck forum instead. Why? Probably because they understand that WA may well go to Ron Paul, and they are already trying to discount WA results and the importance of that caucus.

So, to those of you accusing Ron and the Campaign of not playing to win -- and there seems to be a lot of you in this thread -- I ask again, how is tending to the WA Caucuses over Huck's forum NOT playing to win???

See post #106

 

[D.A.S.]

See post #106

I've read every post in this thread before I posted mine. Take that as you may.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

This isn't the first time they have turned down media appearances though. It is a pattern.

 

[D.A.S.]

This isn't the first time they have turned down media appearances though. It is a pattern.

Yes, I agree, and I have been critical of that in the past. Just not this particular time.

Also, Ron will be on with Piers Morgan on CNN soon, and that's a nice platform to say what he needs to say. With FOX viewers and interviewers, sometimes it's better not to say ANYTHING than say certain things on the air. So in a way, it may be a better idea for Ron to avoid some of those FOX questions slanted to make him look bad to an already hostile base.

I think after that Gloria Borger interview which damaged us prior to Iowa Caucuses, they've been more careful in picking media appearances. Heck, we asked them to be more careful. So they are.

Ron's decisions are carefully weighed and calculated, and I think if he's uncomfortable and doesn't think he'd be able to serve his views justice on some show, he won't do it. I don't fault him for that.

 

[azxd]

Yes, I agree, and I have been critical of that in the past. Just not this particular time.

Understood, but it is a problem ... I'm already resolving myself to trying to figure out when he will drop out of the race.

I hope he doesn't, but 2008 taught me a few things, and it's all still falling into place.

 

[WD-NY]

Someone posted the "NeoConned" speech from 2003 on another forum, and the following jumped off the page at me.

Thinking back to 2008, and seeing what goes on during this campaign ...
I believe you are correct, and I've never seen anyone win anything, if all they are hoping to acheive is an entry form.

Umm... this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say RON NEEDS TO DELIVER REAL SPEECHES...

I'm so tired of the "rah rahs" telling me that Ron's meandering stump speech = more presidential/persuasive/clear than poetic + eloquent language like this:

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down – even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced – and they certainly should have been – but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

Clear, concise, coherent.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven't the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care? (OMG! When Ron has time to think about what he wants to say, he actually uses rhetorical techniques like outlining his case through a series of questions which he will then answer one by one in the paragraphs that follow!? How coherent of him! /sarcasm)

Will the euphoria of grand military victories – against non-enemies – ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

And to close:

The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration's proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war – for almost any reason – is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington – with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building – there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

We're at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I'm not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We're all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.

One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.

Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn't worked in Japan, and it isn't working here either. As a matter of fact, it's never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem – it's a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps who champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it's not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we've had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising – or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people – we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today's problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many – both in and out of government – close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.

The people against making it loud and clear that the grassroots is no longer "ok with" Ron mailing in stump speech after stump speech are, in my opinion at least, ENABLERS. I know they mean well and simply believe that engendering a positive, non-critical "attitude" towards Ron is the best support we can give him ... and up to a certain point they are correct.

But Ron has clearly passed that point. And it's up to us to help him see that his stubbornness towards serious speeches is completely unacceptable given the amount of money, time and energy so many have put into this campaign.

 

[D.A.S.]

Well, the speeches he gives is a wholly different subject from appearing on Huck's show. And for the record, I have said recently that recycling the same old stump speech at his rallies is getting old and that he needs to add some new things in and perhaps add some depth to how he talks about the issues, not the same punch lines that we've already memorized. But that's a different subject.

 

[klamath]

Let's break down the math for logistics to attend Huck's show.



The taping of Huck's show is at 12 NOON Eastern on Saturday in Ohio. Since Paul will be in Washington, that's 9AM Pacific for him. To make it to the forum, Paul would have to fly from Washington state to Ohio either at 5-6 AM Pacific on Saturday morning or on Friday evening.

So far, the last event Paul has scheduled for WA is the Seattle Town Hall Meeting at 7:30 PM Pacific, so he will probably be done around 9-9:30 PM Pacific. Suppose he flies out of Seattle at 10PM, he arrives in Ohio around 1AM Pacific, which is 4AM Eastern. Then, he has to get some decent sleep in order to be at the forum at 12NOON Eastern.

It's possible that Paul also wants to be around in WA on Saturday to address a caucus or simply to hold a rally when the results are announced, in order to thank his supporters there. Why would he do that? It's called respect to people who worked their asses off for him locally and putting them above some FOX interview. I imagine the campaign is expecting a good night in WA, so if past is any indication, Ron will probably hold a rally when the results are announced, like he did in Iowa, like he did in NH, etc.

Huck knew his forum would interfere with WA caucuses, and Ron is choosing to put them above the Huck Forum. Ron's Campaign asked Huck to accommodate via the satellite, and other candidates are free to ask for the same if they want to be in WA, but they chose the Huck forum instead. Why? Probably because they understand that WA may well go to Ron Paul, and they are already trying to discount WA results and the importance of that caucus.

So, to those of you accusing Ron and the Campaign of not playing to win -- and there seems to be a lot of you in this thread -- I ask again, how is tending to the WA Caucuses over Huck's forum NOT playing to win???

What is done is done. I will say this. If RP wins WA it was briliant and you were right. If he loses it was one of the stupider moves by the campaign.

 

[D.A.S.]

What is done is done. I will say this. If RP wins WA it was briliant and you were right. If he loses it was one of the stupider moves by the campaign.

Investments and choices are often calculated risks one way or the other. Given the timing of the WA caucuses and the campaign's schedule leading up to the caucuses, I side with the Campaign here. Not always. But this time, I think it's definitely worth the risk, even if we don't win WA.

 

[WD-NY]

Well, the speeches he gives is a wholly different subject from appearing on Huck's show. And for the record, I have said recently that recycling the same old stump speech at his rallies is getting old and that he needs to add some new things in and perhaps add some depth to how he talks about the issues, not the same punch lines that we've already memorized. But that's a different subject.

My point is that winning Washington won't even matter if he just steps up to the mic on Saturday night and delivers the same meandering stump speech he's been giving since Iowa.

Great speeches have spiritual import and game-changing consequences. Saul Bellow once said to a pack of newspaper reporters the difference between their written work and his was that he “wrote for eternity.” Why isn't Ron writing for eternity right now?? Why isn't Ron stepping up while the world is still watching/listening/paying-attention. Do any of you realize how close to being over this race is. A bad showing on Super Tuesday could = lights out.

And the only way we keep the interest going is by confronting the "rhetoric" of the other candidates (and Obama) and winning the 'war of ideas' through superior logic and thought. Think that’s overblown? How many newspapers do you keep on a shelf in your home or share with friends? Read to your children? Great political speeches can change elections... and that was BEFORE THE INTERNET.

Think about how quickly and widely a game-changing idea/speech can be distributed within the facebook/youtube/political-blogosphere/social-web networks that dominate the media landscape today.

 

[cheapseats]

ImplausibleEndeavors ‏ @MindOfMo Reply Delete Favorite · Open

@GovMikeHuckabee: #TheEmbittered wanna hear self-described Christians RATIONALIZE refusal to let #RonPaul participate in forum by satellite.

 

[cheapseats]

My point is that winning Washington won't even matter if he just steps up to the mic on Saturday night and delivers the same meandering stump speech he's been giving since Iowa.

Great speeches have spiritual import and game-changing consequences. Saul Bellow once said to a pack of newspaper reporters the difference between their written work and his was that he “wrote for eternity.” Why isn't Ron writing for eternity right now?? Why isn't Ron stepping up while the world is still watching/listening/paying-attention. Do any of you realize how close to being over this race is. A bad showing on Super Tuesday could = lights out.

And the only way we keep the interest going is by confronting the "rhetoric" of the other candidates (and Obama) and winning the 'war of ideas' through superior logic and thought. Think that’s overblown? How many newspapers do you keep on a shelf in your home or share with friends? Read to your children? Great political speeches can change elections... and that was BEFORE THE INTERNET.

Think about how quickly and widely a game-changing idea/speech can be distributed within the facebook/youtube/political-blogosphere/social-web networks that dominate the media landscape today.

"NO OFFENSE BUT" is right up there with "WE NEED TO TALK", eh?

I have MANY times wondered why Anti Establishmentarians are aspiring to throw more money at MAINSTREAM Media, when they seem not to spend a NICKEL on speechwriting. Throughout the last election, I invited people to compare the INSTANT CLASSIC soaring oratory of Obama's carefully crafted speeches with his unfailingly pedestrian off-the-cuff remarks.

 

[WD-NY]

"NO OFFENSE BUT" is right up there with "WE NEED TO TALK", eh?

I have MANY times wondered why Anti Establishmentarians are aspiring to throw more money at MAINSTREAM Media, when they seem not to spend a NICKEL on speechwriting. Throughout the last election, I invited people to compare the INSTANT CLASSIC soaring oratory of Obama's carefully crafted speeches with his unfailingly pedestrian off-the-cuff remarks.

Here are all the prepared speeches delivered by Ron Paul between October 2011 and March 1, 2012:

...

Here are all the prepared speeches delivered by President Obama between October 2007 and March 2008:

86. A New Beginning ([SIZE=+1]October 02, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Chicago, IL[/SIZE])
87. Real Leadership for a Clean Energy Future ([SIZE=+1]October 08, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Portsmouth, NH[/SIZE])
88. Lessons from Iraq ([SIZE=+1]October 12, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Des Moines, IA[/SIZE])
89. A Challenge for Our Times ([SIZE=+1]November 02, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Manning, SC[/SIZE])
90. A Change We Can Believe In ([SIZE=+1]November 03, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Spartanburg, SC[/SIZE])
91. Reclaiming the American Dream IA ([SIZE=+1]November 07, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Bettendorf, IA[/SIZE])
92. Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner ([SIZE=+1]November 10, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Des Moines, IA[/SIZE])
93. United Auto Workers Conference ([SIZE=+1]November 13, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Dubuque, IA[/SIZE])
94. Our Kids, Our Future ([SIZE=+1]November 20, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Manchester, NH[/SIZE])
95. Democratic National Committee Fall Meeting ([SIZE=+1]November 30, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Washington, DC[/SIZE])
96. A Call to Serve ([SIZE=+1]December 05, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Mt. Vernon, IA[/SIZE])
97. Foreign Policy Forum ([SIZE=+1]December 18, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Des Moines, IA[/SIZE])
98. Our Moment Is Now ([SIZE=+1]December 27, 2007[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Des Moines, IA[/SIZE])
99. Iowa Caucus Night ([SIZE=+1]January 03, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Des Moines, IA[/SIZE])
100. New Hampshire Primary ([SIZE=+1]January 08, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Nashua, NH[/SIZE])
101. The Great Need of the Hour ([SIZE=+1]January 20, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Atlanta, GA[/SIZE])
102. Economic Speech ([SIZE=+1]January 22, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Greenville, SC[/SIZE])
103. South Carolina Victory Speech ([SIZE=+1]January 26, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Columbia, SC[/SIZE])
104. Kennedy Endorsement Event ([SIZE=+1]January 28, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Washington, DC[/SIZE])
105. Response to the State of the Union ([SIZE=+1]January 28, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Washington, DC[/SIZE])
106. Reclaiming the American Dream KS ([SIZE=+1]January 29, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]El Dorado, KS[/SIZE])
107. The Past Versus the Future ([SIZE=+1]January 30, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Denver, CO[/SIZE])
108. Super Tuesday ([SIZE=+1]February 05, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Chicago, IL[/SIZE])
109. Rebuilding Trust with New Orleans ([SIZE=+1]February 07, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]New Orleans, LA[/SIZE])
110. Virginia Jefferson-Jackson Dinner ([SIZE=+1]February 09, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Richmond, VA[/SIZE])
111. Potomac Primary Night ([SIZE=+1]February 12, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Madison, WI[/SIZE])
112. Keeping America's Promise ([SIZE=+1]February 13, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Janesville, WI[/SIZE])
113. National Gypsum ([SIZE=+1]February 24, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Lorain, OH[/SIZE])
114. March 4th Primary Night ([SIZE=+1]March 04, 2008[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]-[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]San Antonio, TX[/SIZE])​

via: http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=Obama-Speeches.ask

What if Ron had decided to use this final moment in the spotlight, to present his case in the most controlled and thoughtful language possible?

Would Santorum be "winning" the war of ideas using nothing more than divisive, fear laden rhetoric?? This supporter certainly thinks not.

 

[kathy88]

He doesn't get mentioned because he is not creating news Kathy. You don't give the same speech over and over and expect coverage. They have done NOTHING significantly new in the past month. Even the rallies with 3000 people are old news. If the news media isn't covering you, then you have to do something to get them to cover you.

This is not a new phenomenon. He has consistently not getting coverage for years. He could light his farts on fire during a speech and we'd never hear about it. he others create news because they are so full of shit everyone's jumping over each other to prove them wrong. Ron's honest, level headed and a nice guy. No one wants to report on that. It has nothing to do with his campaign not being newsworthy. It has everything to do with the media being owned by big government banking interests.