Ridiculous Media Bias - Ron Paul's Biggest Challenger

If you will cheer up I will vote for Ron Paul in Arizona.

Only if you also kill some huckabee supporters.

I would love to vote for him in AZ but our primary rules prevent independents from voting in primaries...

Ok, which part of AZ are you from?

I know I can. I went down to the HQ to find that out... I don't care enough to re-register, as my independent status means more to me than voting for the long shot especially when Obama is a better choice. I really think he has come around the last couple weeks, and the Iowa victory proves it.

Half of me would love to see Ron Paul in the white house just for message it would send to the establishment, then I get to thinking about his politics... Obama delivers almost the same message, but with substance behind the politics.

A non-establishment (or in Paul's case, anti-establishment) candidate beating the "inevitable" Clinton/establishment machine. I agree very little with Paul's politics, but whole heartedly agree with his philosophy of small government and boarder line isolationism. That however was not why I supported him. I supported Paul because I honestly didn't believe in Obama's message of change up until recently (no, that didn't change yesterday, I'm no bandwagon whore). Paul's is obvious, and not to subtle. Obama's is elegant, subtle, and most importantly, realistic. I applaud the conviction of both candidates, I just believe at this point, Obama is saying more and trying to set a tone. Paul seems to bombastically declare the complete tear down of what is modern day government (I really wouldn't mind seeing that either). The institutions Paul wants to tear down weren't originally created as corrupt. Rather, they have become corrupt as a result of poor leadership, and even worse patriotism.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Ron's not looking to 'tear down' government. He wants to decentralize it. Shift more power back to the individual states. Get big government out of your life. Have you noticed he is a huge proponent of free markets? Empowered states would take advantage of competition, and could actually improve government. Heck, at the very least it gives you and me more of a say in the laws we have to obey, and in where our tax money goes.

The juxtaposition of Ron Paul's position with Obama is clear. Mainstream media has convinced you Ron is a loon that wants to destroy the government. No, Ron is a doctor, congressman, veteran, and a sagacious statesman. I will be voting for him with honor when the time comes, regardless of the political conditions then.

Only if you also kill some huckabee supporters.

Wow. Now that is some dedicated support right there!

I did not say he was crazy or a loon! Give me a break, I "supported" him for months. He was my pick. I do not think he is crazy.

Mainstream media has convinced you Ron is a loon that wants to destroy the government.

If that's what you've "learned" thus far, I do not think I should waste the time in a rebuttal. You obviously know me better than I do.

"Paul seems to bombastically declare the complete tear down of what is modern day government"

Well, if you aren't saying he wants to destroy government, then you're saying he just sounds like it. So then, you're not going to vote for Paul because you believe his tone will be misconstrued.

Apparently your tone in that comment was misconstrued by me, so perhaps I won't vote for you because you are easily misconstrued :)

Really though, you sound informed so I won't hassle you. I am curious - do agree with Obama's vote for the Patriot Act or Paul's vote against it? Perhaps just giving up a little liberty for security is OK, just not too much?

LOL I'm sorry I won't hassle you, really I won't. :P

Had we been sitting face to face, or even had you heard me speaking, you wouldn't have thought so. I have a way with words that cannot be shared over this medium and for that I am sorry.

Paul's vote against the Patriotic Act says a lot, but not all that much considering he never votes for any expansion of government even if it is beneficial to the people (unless it is beneficial to his people, did you watch him on Meet the Press?). Obama's vote doesn't really bother me all that much, even though I whole heartedly disagree with it. Some times you have to play the game to get to the top. Once you are there, you can try and change the game for those that follow. I believe Obama is as extreme as they come if you realistically want to get anything done in Washington. I feel Paul would be a lame duck from the outset, but I have been wrong (many times) before.

MartinEZ - In defense of Ron Paul's earmarks

Great rebuttal actually. I learned something today.

Given that Paul isn't involved in the trading of earmarks for "yes" votes, his requests for earmarks must be judged on the other pros and cons of the practice.

Obviously, however, being the case, his case against earmarks needs to be more vocalized. Granted, with the air time he gets, it's hard to get any real points across.

Adam:

Sorry. Since I draw my spectrum the only sensible way to do it, along the economic efficiency/social justice axis, with ee to the right and sj to the left, I have to put you solidly on the right.

If it makes you feel any better, on the mystical/empirical axis you fall way left.

:^{)>

Adam:

You got to. Seriously. That's because at the end of it all, every political decision by government or other institutions of social organization always reduces to a binary choice, whether it's a local millage for a two-hundred-foot sewer line or invading Mesopotamia.

A Member of Congress has to say Aye or Nay.

Votes for Nader in Florida in 200 helped Bush take the White House. This is not to say that a vote for Nader was illegitimate, simply to say that the it contributed to the binary outcome.

Since politics where it matters is, in fact, one dimensional, any analysis that does not take that into account is incomplete at best. Or worse, paradoxical.

Adam:

Let me ask you this. Why does Ron Paul caucus with the House Republicans despite the fact that he departs from the party line, actually, when you think about, probably more often than not, especially so when the Republicans controlled the chamber?

Let me tell you why. Because he knows what I know--that politics reduces to one dimension. Although he would certainly prefer the kind of Drug Laws that might come out of a Judiciary Committee chaired by John Conyers, he would also prefer the kind of Currency Laws that come out of that committee chaired by William Sensenbrenner. In other words, he doesn't get to pick and choose which dimension. Every bill and resolution proposed in the House is going to come from only one of two possible poles along the spectrum. That in which all the legislation comes through all the Committees chaired and majority-ruled by Democrats or those in which all the legislation comes through all the committees chaired and majority-ruled by Republicans.

That's it bub. Two choices. Binary. One-dimensional. I'm afraid your fearless leader is more sophisticated than you are. Why do you think Paul has so unambiguously ruled out a third-party run?

Adam:

Rather, I'd say we were arguing about the same thing at two different levels, that of individual consciousness and decision-making (you) and that of institutions of social organization and the exercise of power (me).

Even if the USA had a multi-party system (as many other countries appear to), it would still boil down to a binary choice--in the British system, tabbed "The Government" and "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition." There are, in fact, about a dozen political parties in Parliament if you count the one-seat holders that we in the USA would call Independents, who each technically represent a party. But it still comes down to "Government" or "Opposition."

Because power always reduces to a binary choice--either you got it and wanna keep it or you ain't and wanna get it--each individual actor within the institution, people like you or me, must, in the end, reduce our final choice to that binary system, too.

No matter how nuanced and sophisticated and complete and coherent and unique any individual's ideological structure is (and I've always been extremely impressed by yours going back to the Creationism threads), in the end, we have to cast an Aye or a Nay, too.

Now, to back off a bit, let me re-state. Because of what I just said above, I know I have to simplify the political world into that binary choice to see whether in the end, next November, the vote I cast is Aye or Nay. For that purpose I always utilize the economic efficiency/social justice tradeoff. As I kidded above, I realize there are other one-dimensional spectra along which one can simplfy the political world. And all them together make up a the infinte and wondrous thing that is human consciousness and human society.

But when we involve ourselves as political actors, at some point we have to reduce, as you did here:

I don't like half the crap Democrats do, but I dislike it less than I dislike the crap the Republicans do.

To change the subject. Where are all the other Ron Paul supporters on the Vine congregating? I hope they aren't disenheartened. As I said above, he out-performed. Celebrate. (Well except for the noxious media bias.)

Adam:

LAUGH.

Okay. Since I agree with everything in 6.9 it must be that we indeed are arguing about two different things.

So let me put it this way. Although people are not binary, poltical institutions force them to be, or to pretend to be, in order to participate in the political system.

Where does human cloning fall on the left right axis? Copyright law? Data privacy? Portability of health records? Cryptography export rules? Drug patents? Hacking? Reverse engineering? Mad cow testing?

So many of the issues I'm interested in are not on the left/right spectrum, either because they both agree, or they haven't thought about the issue.

Brian:

You want me to start all over again?

If you prioritize each of those issues, as you must, although you will prioritize them in a way that is uniquely yours, then you will have to overlay your issues array, including priority, onto the system as it currently operates and ultimately make a value judgment as to which of the two parties, either the left or right, is likely to advance your position either by the issues rank you made or the number of issues that fall within position array of one party or the other.

Then you vote. For one or the other. Even if you don't vote or vote third party, that abstention or third party vote will have an effect that will enhance one party or the other's power.

If, like Christopher Hitchens, you vote for Bush because you support his prosecution of the War on Terror, you are going to get publicly-funded faith-based social programs whether you @!$%#ing like it or not. And Hitchens doesn't like it, in case you haven't heard.

I have no idea which of the two parties has a position on cryptography export that most matches yours, but if that's the most important issue for you, then you vote for the party whose position you support. If however, the party who you support on cryptography export holds positions you oppose on drug patents and data privacy, you might decide to vote for the other party and thereby surrender your position on crptography export.

I don't know which you'll do. That's your decision to make a free citizen. But whichever decision you make reduces to binary. If you vote for the left party because of one issue on which you hold a left position, you must realize that the result will be unsatisfying to you when an issue on which you hold a right position is addressed at the policy level.

In most cases the left and the right share the exact same stance (whichever one gets them campaign contributions). Both the left and the right embrace drug patents and indefinite copyright. Both are against human cloning and human genetic engineering. Both are against reverse engineering. Neither has a clue about data privacy. Seriously. The only party in the world with a major direct stance on these issues (well, not cloning) is the Pirate Party. And they refuse to take any stand on any other political issues. The only party with a minor stance on these issues is the Libertarian party, and addresses them in passing while seeking to reduce government control over everything and return copyright law to its constitutional bounds. There is no way I can think of to split any of those issues into left or right. How would you do it? The only approach I see here is to vote for the party that seeks less government control, since that automatically gives the most individual freedom to do whatever you want.

Brian:

If we really live in a one-party state, then you know what to do.

Lock and Load. Take for the hills, pod'nuh. We'll live off the land while the rebellion builds and then we'll storm the capital.

I don't know if you people are doing this purpose or if you really don't get it, but this:

The only approach I see here is to vote for the party that seeks less government control, since that automatically gives the most individual freedom to do whatever you want.

Is what I've saying the whole sub-thread. That's a simple, one-dimensional spectrum which will yield a binary outcome. If "less government control" is your primary value (it's not mine but it could be yours) then in most instances in most election cycles probably since the New Deal, your values would best be represented by voting Republican most of the time. That might not be the case this cycle because of the peculiar issues array facing the electorate, but that's almost beside the point--because you can only conclude that it might not be the case this time by applying that one-dimensional spectrum to the current issues array.

Adam:

I think that be true, Adam. In fact, maybe the smartest thing Markos Moulitsas ever wrote on the Daily Kos was his take on Democrats and libertarians, which I believe was long before the '06 mid-terms. If the Dems could position themselves as just a little less intrusive than they've been historically considered (since the New Deal, I mean), there's a nice opportunity there.

For structural reasons, you'll never get "small" government. "Smaller," maybe, but then, real politics in a democratic republic is always about incremental change anyway.

Giuliani is less than a fringe candidate. He's a joke that doesn't realize it yet. Name recognition doesn't translate into presidential viability. Most people recognize Gallagher's name too but few would seriously consider making him president. Although it would mean more watermelon in the White House.

That said, Ron Paul still is a fringe candidate. Finishing fourth is still three short of the mark. If you finish fourth in the American League Central Division race in baseball, you go home in October. Primaries are like baseball, except you don't have to wait until October to be sent home.

Dag, you still don't get it. He has been played down by the media this whole time. Romney, Thompson and Giuliani have been the front runners this whole time. They say Ron Paul will only take in around 2% of the vote. He blew Giuliani away. He has more money raised in last quarter than anyone. Yet they keep down playing him. If it wasn't for the Evangelicals coming in mass, Huck would not be in first, it would be Romney. 60& of those that showed up said they were born again/evangelican. around 30% of them voted for Huck. This is becoming a religious election. Funny thing is, Ron Paul is very religious, but doesn't tout it like huck. Yeh, I know I got a little off track there. Ayway, Ron Paul will do so much better in NH. Huck, will not get as many votes as he did in Iowa. You will again see low numbers for Thompson and Giuliani.

By that standard, Mike Gravel, who got around 5 votes statewide, did 500 percent better than pollsters expected. Don't hold your breath for the Gravel Inauguration though. The point is what you are ignoring, like an ostrich mistaking your own rectum for a hole in the ground. 2 percent is not that far from 10 percent, but very very far from winning. 10 percent is not winning. 10 percent is losing, albeit by less than expected, it is still losing. Losing is losing. In presidential politics, there's no such thing as moral victory. Ask President Gore if you disbelieve me.

Ask President Gore if you disbelieve me.

How would Gore know if Jerry- doesn't believe you?

But Adam the media also said Obama had no chance. Yet now they say he has a chance. So don't pay so much attention to the media. The media, like Dickens' law, is an ass.

I don't remember the media saying that Obama ever had *no* chance.

But, if you just look at the coverage they gave him, even before things got underway, there really is no comparison.

I mean, I think Obama deserved all the attention he got, but then again, his positions are not as "controversial" as Paul's.

I just Googled "Obama has no chance" and got 310,000 hits. I think that's been said, therefore.

That's weird... I googled the same thing and got 5,240 hits. Did you remember to put quotes around your search term? Otherwise, it'll pull up pages with "obama" "no" and "chance" but not necessarily in that order.

Here is a typical example from the media. Read

That's because the trend is over. Many in the media now believe Obama does have a chance. Go pick up a paper from this time last year and there were plenty of common taters saying he had no chance, a ghost of a chance, less than a bat's chance in hell, whatever colloquial saying they used, it makes no difference.

Perhaps that's because Ron Paul had his honeymoon with the media when he ran for president the first time back in 1988. He went out into wingnutland and ran as the Libertarian Party candidate, finishing a distant third to George Bush and Michael Dukakis, making Dukakis look like a giant with his Lilliputian showing. You can't poll 0.5 percent nationwide and not hope to shake the reputation you earn as a big loser. Obama has never run nationwide; his national exposure so far has been limited to a great speech in 2004 and the fact that he kicked Alan Keyes' ass four months later. So let Obama screw up, as he will, even if he does win the election. The press will be there to turn on him like the pack of cowardly curs they are. As for Paul, he has already earned the media's disapprobation, so why all the b!tching?

That was rather rude. Talk to me tomorrow night after Ron Paul loses yet another primary.

OK, Adam, so turn it into something positive.

CNN should have had him up on that board, but didn't. That sucks, but it had no effect on the outcome of the caucus itself. It might have an effect on New Hampshire, if people are unaware of how well he did in Iowa and think he did badly.

So don't let it.

Get the word out, like you're doing here. You got 5 days to rally support so people will come on strong for Ron Paul in NH, and you have this treatment of him by CNN to use to rally them.

By the way, You've been digged.

I linked this to RonPaulforums as well.

I clipped it around Newsvine to a few related groups.

By the way, You've been digged.

Is it digged or dugg?

I think it's "dugg." But I ran out of time to edit it, so my shameful "digged" stands for history to judge.

I don't want to stand strong, and watch as the rest of america crumbles around me.

I hate the tout the 'lesser of two evils' philosophy, but unfortunately, it applies here.