If you haven't seen this, you're probably just waking up. Allow me to make your day:
My two cents: I'm not much on conspiracy theories, but I'm not big on coincidences either. Ron Paul was on the air practically every day for the past four years, up to and including the pre-vote coverage of the Straw Poll. But when he does well there, they suddenly start cancelling his appearances and neglecting to mention his name?
I'm not buying it. ANd don't give me that nonsense about "he always does well at Straw Polls," either, because that's not true. He always did well at online polls, but his "luck" at the straw polls didn't start turning good until about two years ago.
This is the clearest case of an Orwellian corporate media picking our candidates for us that most of us will ever see.
It remains my contention that Paul got news coverage because he was being set up for a fall when the economy turned around - as the pundits expected it would. No such luck on their part so it's back to the tried and true Qrwellian "memory hole". It's not working too well for them, thanks to the computer age because we've now got an "F5" button on our keyboards.
I was amazed to get an email from someone who's not into politics at all. He was sending me Stewart's video and recognizing the glaring "flaw" in this country's journalistic objectivity. This could very well backfire for the MSM.
The big question for me is: How many of
the citizenry think this a bad thing? If enough people are satisfied with eschewing journalistic integrity for the purity of the red/blue political message, we've got a real problem on our hands.
Posted by: Eric Parks | 08/16/2011 at 08:10 AM
Now, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy stuff, either--although, like you, I'm not so sure about repeated coincidences, either.
Ron Paul is left out of mix, in spite of doing quite well--not just in the online polls, but now, in Ames, which is a real sign of organizational strength in at least one state (a state important enough to show organizational strength, apparently, that Pawlenty has bailed out with a 3rd place showing).
Add to that the fact that the other Paul-type candidate, Gary Johnson, is getting no attention, either.
Then, take note of the fact that an organization created by Paul folks here in Nebraska--the Nebraska Campaign for Liberty (as well as the RLC Chapter, which was also created here in the state almost exclusively by Paul fans)--was almost left completely out of any mention in coverage of the Heartland LibertyFest (which NEC4L organized and hosted), while the LP, NEGOP, AFP-NE (all high level sponsors) were prominently mentioned in after-action coverage related to one Senate candidates mis-speak.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Or just bad journalism (if you'd gotten as far as finding out that the LP, NEGOP and AFP-NE were all involved in the event, you would have to be either intentionally leaving out the NEC4L/RLCNE, or you'd have to be an idiot--anything that had the other organizations names and logos on them also had NEC4L's and RLCNE's).
I suspect that this will get ugly before this primary campaign is over. Santorum's criticism of Paul at the debate is just the start. Conspiracy? Maybe, but I wonder if the guy from below isn't going to play "bash Ron Paul" for a while, in the interest of taking him out for those above (and maybe giving himself a better position for a VP nod?).
Posted by: Laura | 08/16/2011 at 09:08 AM
After seeing Santorum rant about Paul in every post straw poll he did, I too figured that was his strategy. I think Paul's campaign did the right thing by ignoring it. As Ann Coulter says, never attack down.
Posted by: @AngelaTC | 08/16/2011 at 09:22 AM
I would never suggest that Ron Paul "attack down", but I do think that at some point, he's going to have to figure out a way to respond effectively. If he doesn't then Santorum's criticism becomes "the truth."
Posted by: Laura | 08/16/2011 at 10:02 AM
Maybe, but Santorum seems right on the verge of turning his image into that of a slightly deranged stalker. Even I was surprised to see how bitter and nasty he got. I guess he didn't get the memo about that being the 2008 reaction to Paul. These days, it's supposed to at least be coupled with an adoption of his policies.
Posted by: AngelaTC | 08/16/2011 at 01:58 PM
I've always sort of thought of Santorum in those terms...
Still, no matter how he looks, if he consistently criticizes only Ron Paul, and the others give quiet assent to what he's saying, I don't see how that can be a positive for Ron. It may appeal to Ron's supporters, who already like to think of themselves as not running with the pack, but for those who think of themselves as "regular Republicans", Santorum's unanswered rants may not help him, but I think they add credibility to the "others" above him that aren't Ron Paul.
Posted by: Laura | 08/16/2011 at 02:50 PM
The first time it happened, they let Rand respond, which I thought was a brilliant move.
Posted by: AngelaTC | 08/16/2011 at 07:57 PM