Ron Paul is leading in the straw polls and being talked about non-stop, but...

Dumpy Dooby · 08-26-2007, 04:30 PM

So he's unarguably one of the leading candidates according the straw polls, which debunks the hypothesis that it's "just a small online group."

6th (8%) - South Dakota Straw Poll (9/3/2007)
1st (27%) - Maryland Straw Poll (9/3/2007)
3rd (17%) - Texas Straw Poll (9/1/2007)
1st (45%) - Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (8/26/2007)
1st (24%) - DeKalb County, Georgia Straw Poll (8/25/2007)
3rd (16%) - HRCC, Minnesota (8/22/2007)
1st (28%) - Ronald Reagan Club, Washington (8/21/2007)
1st (81%) - West Alabama (8/18/2007)
1st (72%) - Strafford County, NH (8/18/2007)
4th (12%) - West Lafayette, Indiana (8/18/2007)
3rd (19%) - Illinois State Fair (8/17/2007)
4th (9%) - Students for Life of America (8/16/2007)
6th (4%) - Western Montana Fair (8/15/2007)
1st (37%) - Gaston County, NC (8/14/2007)
5th (9%) - Ames, Iowa (8/11/2007)
3rd (14%) - National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), St. Louis, MO (8/6/2007)

But yet he gets very little mention in Google News.

And even the major news outlets.

He wins all the straw polls, but gets no mention in the news. Anyone see a problem here?

And just for shits and giggles, I made this. It shows how much Ron Paul et al. are talked about in the blogosphere (top), compared to how much they're talked about in the news (bottom).

Take note that the most talked about candidate on the rest of the 'net is almost consistently the most talked about candidate in the news ... except when Ron Paul becomes the most talked about candidate online.

avsp · 09-01-2007, 11:03 AM

RP got his own AP/Yahoo story yesterday, ..., RB picked it up
Underdog Paul inspires political passion

AVengeance · 09-05-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

And even the major news outlets.

...

McCain and Giulliani are the media favs. The mass media will cram those two names down the throats of anyone gullible enough to pay attention to their propoganda. They're the favorites, of course, because they can't win against a good Dem ticket, like Edwards/Clinton.

David Octavius · 09-05-2007, 11:59 AM

Libertarians cannot have it both ways..if your for companies doing whatever they want to do with their media then don't cry about what they choose to show or not show..mass media is owned by corporations and by the libertarian standard, they can do whatever the hell they want too. They have no obligation to Ron Paul, to America or anyone else, if the people don't like it, don't read their papers or watch their programs.

Let the free market decide, oh wait they did, they don't want to hear about Ron Paul

AVengeance · 09-05-2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Libertarians cannot have it both ways..if your for companies doing whatever they want to do with their media then don't cry about what they choose to show or not show..mass media is owned by corporations and by the libertarian standard, they can do whatever the hell they want too. They have no obligation to Ron Paul, to America or anyone else, if the people don't like it, don't read their papers or watch their programs.

Let the free market decide, oh wait they did, they don't want to hear about Ron Paul

I agree. It is unfortunate that so many people place blind faith that the entertainment they watch, called "news", and that many people geniunely believe they are watching imperical, unbiased presentations of current events and facts.

As a libertarian, I am all for the market deciding what products or services to purchase and make use of. On the other hand, I think a company should be punished severely when they lie about a a product or service they're peddling. The major media, therefore, should stop calling their internal studio entertainment segments "news" and make another name for them. Or just use an existing and appropriate term- propoganda.

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Libertarians cannot have it both ways..if your for companies doing whatever they want to do with their media then don't cry about what they choose to show or not show..mass media is owned by corporations and by the libertarian standard, they can do whatever the hell they want too. They have no obligation to Ron Paul, to America or anyone else, if the people don't like it, don't read their papers or watch their programs.

Let the free market decide, oh wait they did, they don't want to hear about Ron Paul

I haven't heard anyone calling for legislation to change what is happening. All I've read from people is that they think it's bullshit.

David Octavius · 09-05-2007, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I haven't heard anyone calling for legislation to change what is happening. All I've read from people is that they think it's bullshit.

Yea whining about the very thing they should be supporting, corporate media's right to publish/broadcast what they want..can't be libertarian and then deride the very ideal you support just because it so happens they exercise their rights in a manner you don't like, that's hypocrisy and a double standard..a trait of all ideologies

Publius · 09-05-2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea whining about the very thing they should be supporting, corporate media's right to publish/broadcast what they want..can't be libertarian and then deride the very ideal you support just because it so happens they exercise their rights in a manner you don't like, that's hypocrisy and a double standard..a trait of all ideologies

you can think something is bullshit without wanting to stop it.

I think the way most of our sales counselors work is bullshit, but I don't want to change the way the funeral industry works.

David Octavius · 09-05-2007, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

you can think something is bullshit without wanting to stop it.

I think the way most of our sales counselors work is bullshit, but I don't want to change the way the funeral industry works.

Your missing the point..right now many libertarians think it's BS and are angry. Imagine if some of them - who may not have the same ethics or honor as you - gain power, I bet a few of them would use force to rectify what they see as an egregious wrong for what they call the "greater libertarian good".

The flaw is human, it's what corrupts all ideologies, why you think the Reps and Demos are so corrupt? They started out with great ideals, but the execution of such requires humans to act rational ALL THE TIME and to defer their emotions to the ideology ALL THE TIME. Most people can't and they seem to be the ones who always get elected.

The moment libertarians gain power will be the exact death of the libertarian ideal and the birth of "libertarianism". Much like the neo-cons turned classical conservatives to "conservatives" in name only.

Ardentfrost · 09-05-2007, 06:32 PM

Add MD to the straw poll list... he got the #1 spot

Maryland Republican Party :: News Item - GOP Presidential Straw Poll Is A Big Success

Dumpy Dooby · 09-06-2007, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Your missing the point..right now many libertarians think it's BS and are angry. Imagine if some of them - who may not have the same ethics or honor as you - gain power, I bet a few of them would use force to rectify what they see as an egregious wrong for what they call the "greater libertarian good".

That's rather inconsistent because libertarians adamently oppose things like "The Fairness Doctrine" and other such bills which would seemingly force the mainstream news outlets to give Ron Paul a fair amount of airtime. As soon as someone starts legislating against unalienable rights, that person is longer exercising libertarian principals.

Dumpy Dooby · 09-06-2007, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Add MD to the straw poll list... he got the #1 spot

Maryland Republican Party :: News Item - GOP Presidential Straw Poll Is A Big Success

I added three more straw polls. MD was one of them.

David Octavius · 09-06-2007, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's rather inconsistent because libertarians adamently oppose things like "The Fairness Doctrine" and other such bills which would seemingly force the mainstream news outlets to give Ron Paul a fair amount of airtime. As soon as someone starts legislating against unalienable rights, that person is longer exercising libertarian principals.

What libertarians believe while they are not in power is not the same as if they gain power. I'm sure the neo-cons did not think they would do illegal wiretaps, violate habeas-corpus etc but they did anyway and you would think fellow conservatives would stop that but they didn't. They may not be true conservatives, but they represent them in their overall ideals and shows the perversion of it. The same would happen to libertarians, consistency with ideals become maeable when power is present

Ardentfrost · 09-06-2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

What libertarians believe while they are not in power is not the same as if they gain power. I'm sure the neo-cons did not think they would do illegal wiretaps, violate habeas-corpus etc but they did anyway and you would think fellow conservatives would stop that but they didn't. They may not be true conservatives, but they represent them in their overall ideals and shows the perversion of it. The same would happen to libertarians, consistency with ideals become maeable when power is present

The reason we have libertarians today is because that happened with conservatives. They used to be the proponents of personal freedom, and now they're not. That's why people call them neo-cons now... that's NEW style conservatives, which isn't conservative at all.

If a libertarian got into power and went the same route, he would just be another neo-con. The ideals of libertarians aren't a new thing, and people with those ideals have been in power many times in the past. It's up to the citizens to keep those people honest though, which failed over the past 50 years, and so here we are.

Publius · 09-06-2007, 11:01 AM

Apparently Ron Paul raised somewhere between $125,000 and $200,000 (I've read conflicting reports) over the weekend at the Texas Straw Poll.

RMNIXON · 09-09-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

McCain and Giulliani are the media favs. The mass media will cram those two names down the throats of anyone gullible enough to pay attention to their propoganda. They're the favorites, of course, because they can't win against a good Dem ticket, like Edwards/Clinton.

Somehow I really doubt CNN, ABC, or the BBC were saying nice things about any GOP candidate.

I hope you did not mean to suggest Edwards as President and Hillary as VP?

AVengeance · 09-10-2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Somehow I really doubt CNN, ABC, or the BBC were saying nice things about any GOP candidate.

I hope you did not mean to suggest Edwards as President and Hillary as VP?

I didn't say they were saying "nice" things about them. I said they are the favorites. They are the favorites because they're the easiest straw men to knock down by a decent dem candidate pair. Rudy is Mr 911 and has no content whatsoever. McCain is about as liberal as a rep can be without actually getting burned at the stake by an angry mob of congressional colleages.

Oh, and yes. Edwards will be prez and Billary will be VP.

David Octavius · 09-10-2007, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The reason we have libertarians today is because that happened with conservatives. They used to be the proponents of personal freedom, and now they're not. That's why people call them neo-cons now... that's NEW style conservatives, which isn't conservative at all.

If a libertarian got into power and went the same route, he would just be another neo-con. The ideals of libertarians aren't a new thing, and people with those ideals have been in power many times in the past. It's up to the citizens to keep those people honest though, which failed over the past 50 years, and so here we are.

There are those in Washington right now that people call conservative that are not. The fact is the name stays the same but the definition of it changes. A "liberal" 100 years ago was a different definition than it is now, same with conservatives and will be the same with libertarians if they ever gain power.

They are not even in power and they are already complaining that the free market media is bias against what they believe in. It's a short ride from complaining to doing something about when the means are there.

The ideals of libertarians were once called liberals, then conservatives and now libertarians and if the libertarians take power it will be called something else as libertarians get corrupt with power and ideology...power and ideology is a dangerous mixture.