Why Does Rand Get So Much Favorable Coverage When Ron Doesn't?

I guess Im a lot more skeptical of politicians, even Rand right now. Im trusting Amish and Gunny more than Rand.

I think Ill need to see another couple years of voting from Rand to fully trust him. As many know, there are VERY powerful forces in this world and even Rand is susceptible to them.

You're about 3 months late with a post like this.
 
Disagree. Keeping D*n Bl*ck's donation and frequently appearing on Alex Jones' radio show were political mistakes.

Maybe what you're saying is true, but you know what the interesting thing is? Rand also goes to Alex Jones, before and after winning, just not as often.
 
Let's be blunt as well.

Rand got very lucky, in the timing of his run.

Had it been any other year other than 2010 with the general "populist" anti-establishment sentiment, his win would have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Plus he was replacing Sen. Bunning. Not really the cuddly bear of the delegation.
 
It's impossible to run a flawless campaign, but considering what was possible to accomplish in 2008 and what Ron did accomplish, it was very close to flawless.

Regarding the newsletters, they did affect the media coverage, and might affect it again in the future. But I'm not even sure that they will.

Ron's campaign was not at all flawless. He ran to educate and then got caught with his shoes untied when he started raising the money he was raising. /rant

Rand's, on the other hand...
 
It depends on who is writing the articles. The left likes Ron more; he was demonized in a primary. The right likes Rand more; he was demonized in a general election in terms to appeal to the right and repulse the left.

The different times and need for education which Ron addressed are mentioned above.
 
Rand doesn't come off as a crank. Also, Ron isn't a good speaker. He's not good at getting his point across in snippets. I'm a huge Ron fan but he'll never be president b/c most people will never vote for someone who has a kooky air about them. Rand's ideas may be extreme but he knows how to package them MUCH better than Ron. Ron is tough for me to listen to. My opinion anyway
 
2 things. Sarah Palin endorsed Rand and Rand said he supports Israel.

cp4304_facepalm.gif
 
Last edited:
HAHA! I endorse trolling their site everytime Rand stands for something they "should" support, but don't because Dear Leader Obama is president.

My favorite comment: "Rand Paul could tell me the sky is blue and I would rethink my belief that the sky is blue."
:eek:

But if Obama told them the sky is green they would never ever question it. Sad, sad, sad...
 
It's amazing how people I know who spat at the thought of Ron, loved Rand for the exact same message. Neo-Cons don't like to be told they are wrong point blank. They need a story about the 'Sword of Damocles' to see the light. :)

I say they need both. They need the bad cop to shake them out of their bulletproof satisfaction with their status quo attitudes, and it won't work if their plan isn't coming down around their ears and you're not too gentle pounding the truth home.

Then they need a good cop to come in and say it respectfully, so they'll have someone to vote for without losing face.
 
The reason why Rand is more popular among the right than Ron can be summed up in two words:

Overton Window

That and the fact that Ron got popular during a Republican administration and Rand got popular during a Democrat administration.

But regarding the Overton Window, it's clear whenever the two speak. Rand just has that political sensibility that subtly tempers what he says.
 
:eek:

But if Obama told them the sky is green they would never ever question it. Sad, sad, sad...

Essentially, that's what pretty much everyone except Latins for Peace said on that retarded DK thread. It was truly an epic bit of doublethink. If Bush did exactly the same thing those same people would unanimously be up in arms.
 
Back
Top