http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg
Good. god.
WTF is this shit?
Everybody knew Ron Paul wasn't gonna get the nomination, and that was never really what he was bringing to the table. Rather, his followers are pretty dedicated libertarian voters who can go either way. Ron Paul was going to provide the RNC with an invaluable service of wooing these voters to their candidate, except the RNC screwed it up by making them feel excluded over... nothing really. I don't get it. Making people vote for them with bullshit warm fuzzy feelings is what politicians are all about; why didn't the RNC do that with the Ron Paul people?
Regarding the Ron Paul thing... I continue to find it hard to agree with the media's assertion that he'd have had no chance. I believe he could have united Libertarians, many Democrats dissatisfied with Obama's reluctance to push for reform, the ever-growing Reagan Republicans who find it hard to find a candidate to support these days, and is the first Republican candidate I've seen who'd have appealed to the LGBT crowd with his stance on getting government out of the religious ceremony that is marriage. He kept a good division between his religious values and his political policy, respecting that they were different things, and didn't have to inform one another. He had some dramatic notions about governmental reform, but some post-primary grooming would certainly have tempered his more radical notions, as with most candidates. I'd have liked to see where he and his staff would go; strong opinions and an ability to compromise are cornerstones of a good politics... not another sycophant smiling, nodding, and voting safely along party lines. That way lies stagnation.
But yes, were this an unbiased representative system, I believe he could have easily swung those on the fence to the GOP's side, and had a good shot at defeating the incumbent. Instead, Paul was barred from several primary debates, when he got there he was laughed at and ignored by the hosts until the crowd yelling to let him speak was too large to gloss over, and after editing still had commercial breaks and such cut him off. These are all things that happened, but people don't like to talk about them, or what they may represent. As in the above link, there really does seem to have been a concerted effort to laugh him off the stage, silence him, and barring that to sew the notion that he was too fringe or too extreme to have a shot. And that succeeded.
He
was a serious candidate, with some ideas to bring real and needed change to fiscal policy in the government. Instead, the media took a dismissive attitude toward him, and people came to echo the same conclusion. A flat tax, and other forms of real fiscal responsibility must be a scary thing for those in monetary power, for them to feel the need to summon their funds and exercise their influence over the media to blatantly and directly oppose it that way.
The end result is that when asked, many many people will say that they liked him, and a lot of his policies, but figured he wouldn't have had a chance. Divide people with messages of doubt and futility, and what they feel or support wont matter; you've defeated them already. Such is the price of having a mass media who require heavy funding to still exist, especially in an age where advertising dollars are evaporating. The wealthy will continue to have control of information, and thus undue influence over our government, until we find ways within the system of holding them accountable.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1292615 times)