What's Wrong With Ron Paul?

[4sarge]

Let's get all the Ron Paul bashing and failings here in a new MEGA THREAD so we don't have to keep posting all over the place to defend or bash him.

Let's start with the media conspiracy.

Here's one of my posts on another thread:

Chatting with a young conservative voter today who voted for Huck but also really liked Ron Paul. CNN was on and he asked me why there was NO word on RP. I said: "Strange isn't it? Here we are watching 24 hour news and they can't find ANY time to cover Ron Paul. If nothing else just to "stir the pot" and create some kind of counterpoint?" He concurred and brought up the word conspiracy.

But while RP was besting Rudy, they (TV) found all kinds of time to cover Rudy. When there were 5 candidates in the race, newspaper voter guides omitted RP and showed 4. Then when 4 were left, they only show 3, etc. Even my local paper omitted RP from their voter guide. Incidentally, this paper is owned by a jewish family and perhaps RP's stance on foreign aid bothers them.

Lets not **** ourselves here. RP is in a downword sprial. No TV=No votes.

If all of us Paulites think he's somehow going to get a "Voice" by either attrition or gaining a few delegates, we are deluding ourselves. Mainstream media is against him and will exclude him to the point where the majority of the US hasn't heard of him or thinks he's dropped out. Conspiracy? No. There's NEVER been any conspiracy in our media ever. BAAA.

Any positive thoughts on how he could salvage the campaign or get the message out?

 

[HKuser]

Oh, c'mon, hasn't he been on the late night talk shows even. He's excluding himself. Paul is lazy. He was lazy in Congress, never trying to actually move bills. He's now sitting on a pot of money but not doing anything with it to win. He's Fred Thompson with money. I don't understand the guy. The only media you can trust is the media you have a receipt for. He's got the money, buy it!

 

[Thumper]

Americans generally don't like defeatists.

Once a fight starts, you need to pick a side. Paul picked his and was rewarded with 3% support.

 

[Unregistered]

He's the wrong man with the right message.

He hasn't been able to clearly articulate how he supports the War on Terror in Afghanistan, but not the War on Whatever in Iraq. I don't think being anti-Iraq War would have hurt him if he had been able to explain his position without coming across as a defeatist. After all, I think the Democrats will win the general election because they are (perceived to be) anti-war.

He acts nervous, sqirrelly, and just a little bit off in the debates. That didnt help either.

 

[4sarge]

His lack of assertiveness in the debates hurt him. And helped Huckabee.
He's not polished like the other candidates, but lazy? I don't buy that.

No, I've never seen a TV ad for RP. But I didn't see one for Huckabee either. So the only thing I can attribute Huckabee's success to was his debate performance. Unless just maybe Huckabee being included in the voting guides published by the papers helped a slight bit.

Spend the coin, get the message out. Come out swinging. Got to buy the media.

 

[Pat H]

Ron Paul has experienced a near total media blackout since January 1st. Closed down.

The last CNN Republican "debate" had only four candidates, two of them received about 90% of the time, or perhaps more. It was so bad even Mike Huckabee complained about it during the debate, to no avail.

 

[4sarge]

I watched the debate and the "we'll get to you in two questions, I promise" part. It's truly deplorable.

When CNN reran the debate, did they include all of the debate or just edited versions?

 

[rrtex1]

Why wouldn't Ron Paul allow himself to be interveiwed by Neal Boortz? Wouldn't that be a part of getting his message out?

 

[Thumper]

You guys are engaging in wishful thinking. Money talks, in all things. He got as much valuable debate (and media) time as his very low support demanded.

You guys believe the media should give 20% of thier valuable coverage to a 5% candidate? Why?

These are the primaries. If you want to blame someone, blame your candidate. Or his message. Or his supporters. You can all have some of the responsibility. Why?

It takes a heck of a lot of FAIL to keep a candidate with as much money as Paul under 5%.

 

[wingman]

The talking heads of media prefer dems, McCain, Hillary and Obama so which
do you believe they will chatter about, but the American public continues to
watch and repeat what they hear so it appears to work.

 

[Thumper]

The talking heads of media prefer

coverage that generates viewers (advertisers).

There, fixed it for you.

 

[STAGE 2]

Ron Paul has experienced a near total media blackout since January 1st. Closed down.

Really? Are media outlets refusing to run his ads? They have been playing here in california for at least 2 weeks. He's been on all the networks, in all the debates, had an entire show on CNN devoted to him, and been on Leno for chrissakes.

Paul has gotten his message out. That isn't the problem. The reason you people are sticking with this tired old line of "Paul hasn't been heard by the people" is that if he has been heard, then there has to be another reason for his pathetic performance. Simply put, the people have rejected his message.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

You guys believe the media should give 20% of thier valuable coverage to a 5% candidate? Why?

Five percent of the coverage would have been a step up from what he got. Look upthread a bit: They weren't covering him back when they WERE covering Rudy, at a time when he was cleaning the floor with Rudy. That's not justifiable on any objective basis at all.

Why should they have covered him? Because when there are five candidates, covering "all four of them" is a LIE. And the media should not be lying to people.

The ultimate end of this logic is that the media should pick who's going to be elected, and then just airbrush every other candidate out of existence.

 

[rwilson452]

Mesage to Ron Paul drum beaters

It doesn't matter why.

Give it up. Stick a fork in him. He's done.

 

[Thumper]

The ultimate end of this logic is that the media should pick who's going to be elected, and then just airbrush every other candidate out of existence.

Ridiculous. The "ultimate end" is that the media will cover the primaries and the candidate that commands votes will attract coverage.

Why the tendency for some Paul supporters to look everywhere else for responsiblity for their failures? Never mind...that's rhetorical.

 

[TheBluesMan]

What's wrong with Ron Paul.

Simple. He doesn't know how to get the attention of the media. No conspiracy, it just comes down to ratings.

Ron Paul sounds (and looks a little) like some old dead guy from the late 18th Century who might have signed a treasonous document against the king.

Nobody in 21st Century America cares.

Gimme my free health care.
Gimme my tax break and stick it to the rich man down the road.
Gimme my cheap food picked by illegal aliens
Gimme, gimme, gimme.

That's what today's American understands.

Realistic economic goals? Personal freedom and responsibility? Limited constitutional government? Who cares!?!?! American Idol is on!!!

Ron Paul's lack of success is less an indictment of his media-manipulating skills than a sad commentary on the attitude of the average American.

Oh, and his over-zealous, attack-supporters don't help him AT ALL!:barf:

 

[STAGE 2]

Five percent of the coverage would have been a step up from what he got. Look upthread a bit: They weren't covering him back when they WERE covering Rudy, at a time when he was cleaning the floor with Rudy. That's not justifiable on any objective basis at all.

Sure it is. At one time Rudy was the frontrunner. At his lowest time in the polls, Rudy was still far ahead of Paul. As a result, he is more viable and thus deserves more attention.

Why should they have covered him? Because when there are five candidates, covering "all four of them" is a LIE. And the media should not be lying to people.

Last time I checked, the media is a group of private organizations. As such, they can have debates in any format they want. If they don't want to give any attention to a candidate who has come in dead last in all but a few primaries thats there choice. You may not like it, but don't sit there and tell me that they didn't have any reason for it, or that they have an obligation to do anything. Their only obligation is to their shareholders.

 

[joeybolz]

From some of the previous posts, how would one explain McCain's resurgence with no money. Flat broke in September and a nearly a laughing stock. Huckabee, less than a million bucks in September but then a big resurgence. Must of been Jesus huh?

When you hear the word conspiracy you might think of secret meetings and insidious orchestrations by real or unreal cabals. There is nothing secret about what the media has done to Ron Paul. It doesn't need to be a secret. Most are not paying attention or they're just taking their pablum from the easiest source. It's hard not to laugh in their face when you see the blank look you get when mentioning Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul had received 1/16 the press that Hillary has, he'd be the front runner squirrelly or not. But then some say you have to be worthy of that much attention. Ok then Hillary is and Ron is not. McCain is and Ron is not. Huckabee is and Ron is not. Ha!

 

[crashm1]

Let me start by saying I am a RP supporter and have donated money and time to a candidate or the first time ever in the last few months. I am proud to be tilting at windmills and engaging in the process. It's kinda fun.
Unlike some I don't think there is a conspiracy to keep RP out of the news. I have seen him on several news programs and heard stories covering him on NPR as recently as Tuesday, I am beginning to think his campaign staff are inept or keeping a very tight lid on the campaign war chest for some obscure reason. It may be so he can keep speaking till the end but it isn't getting any votes for him now. McCain and Huckabee are both in the red spending money they don't have to promote their message such as it is, Ron Paul has 8.5 million in the bank. It shows fiscal conservatism which is nice but it does nothing for his name recognition. I heard a stat that 80% of the people that know his name view him favorably but only 20% know who he is. Not so good for a presidential candidate. I live sorta near Minneapolis and commute through it and have heard RP ads on the radio for the last couple of weeks, I was happy to hear them but think they could have been done way better. They really didn't do much to promote his views. I didn't see any TV ads but our TV is rarely on and we almost never watch local networks.
I went to the MPLS rally and was impressed to see 4200 some people there. I believe the message is right but that something isn't clicking for most who hear it. Maybe it's his stance on Iraq that turns people off or maybe we are to reliant on "government" to envision what it would be like if it didn't try to protect us from housing bubbles, terrorists, global warming, drugs and poverty no matter the cost.
I am pleased he did well in MN, my home state but bummed that nationally he rarely breaks out of single digits. I had hoped for better. JMHO

 

[joeybolz]

Last time I checked, the media is a group of private organizations. As such, they can have debates in any format they want. If they don't want to give any attention to a candidate who has come in dead last in all but a few primaries thats there choice. You may not like it, but don't sit there and tell me that they didn't have any reason for it, or that they have an obligation to do anything. Their only obligation is to their shareholders.

Actually that explained it pretty well. We still do have a free press it's just not the people press. It's GE's, Westinghouse, NewsCorp, and others. Most have a huge vested interest in oil, large banking interests, and the military industrial complex.