Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Revolution? What Revolution? As much as we want to believe in the Ron Paul Revolution, sooner or later we're going to have to realize that such a thing does not exist.by A.J. Antimony
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
It's a troubling thought, but we can't avoid it. There is absolutely no revolution of any kind going on in this country. And we all know why. It's because too few people are hearing about Ron Paul's radical message of true freedom and personal liberties. And why is this? It's because of the mainstream television media and its continual censorship of the most qualified Presidential candidate.
It's very easy to point the finger at the MSM (you decide which finger), but do they deserve all of the blame for the small exposure of Dr. Paul's message? I think there's someone out there who ultimately should get more blame for this than any news network.
That person is you.
Yes, you do a lot of different activities in support of Dr. Paul, but there's an area that you, and the rest of us, are ignoring. Well, we ignored it all but once.
Earlier this month, Dr. Paul was excluded from the New Hampshire Republican debate which was hosted by Fox News. Many people, even non-Paul supporters found this act extremely unfair. Paul produced a respectable 10% in the Iowa caucus which was well ahead of Rudy Giuliani, who was invited to the New Hampshire debate. We all remember the emotional response to this blatant act of unfairness. A barrage of emails, letters, and boycotts convinced Fox News to flip flop on their exclusion policy thus they included Paul in the network's South Carolina debate. Then the anger toward Fox News seemingly went away.
It doesn't make any sense. We successfully proved that we could unite and force the networks to be fair, but essentially everyone stopped once Paul was invited to South Carolina. Of course there are some great Americans out there who have never stopped, but you know what I mean. The emotion afterward just wasn't the same. But why did we stop? Are the networks being fairer to Ron Paul after the Fox News boycott? Believe it or not, the networks have been even harsher toward Dr. Paul than they were before the Fox News debacle.
Recall what happened during the Fox News South Carolina debate. Each "moderator" would go around to each candidate asking them the same question regarding a certain topic. For example, at one point every candidate was asked for their opinion of Ronald Reagan. When it was Paul's turn, the "moderator" asked Dr. Paul a question about 9/11. The same moderator later asked another Paul-only question when he asked if Paul had any "electabilty." Then, afterward, when the text message poll said Ron Paul easily won the debate, a Fox News focus group led by F--- You Frank said Paul lost the debate.
The censorship of Ron Paul continued even during the Nevada/South Carolina primaries and not just on Fox News. Michael Kraft from charlotteconservative.com points out how the New York Times and MSNBC were in on it too. Networks have also been censoring Ron Paul subtly. Recently I was watching CNN and they did a bit about Barack Obama's massive online popularity. Not a mention of Paul and his online support which, come on, owns the internet.
With all of this Fox-like unfairness on seemingly every major network, it boggles the mind as to why the massive boycott isn't expanding and continuing. Are we really satisfied with how the media is treating Ron Paul? No? Then why aren't we telling them so? We did it before and there's really no reason we shouldn't be doing it now.
And it's not as if boycotting is hard. You did it earlier this month. Just write a few emails and send in a few letters, not only to whichever news network, but also to their sponsors. The most important thing to remember is to never let up. The bit on Obama is a perfect example. When talking about internet popularity, they really should at least mention Paul even if they're discussing a different candidate. It's only fair. The Arizona Republic for example had a front page article about the political involvement of young people and both Obama and Paul were thoroughly mentioned. Or what about when a network excludes another "fringe" candidate from a debate such as, say, Dennis Kucinich? Surely their opinions deserve to be heard too, even if their name isn't Ron Paul. After all, it's the message we are fighting for.
So I challenge you, instead of ceasing the boycott, expand it! Every time they ignore Paul, every time they make fun of him, every time they smear him and his message, get on your computer, write up a quick email and send it not only to the network but also to all of the network's sponsors. Expand the boycott outside of Ron Paul too. When a network disrespects a fellow "fringe" candidate, let them know you don't appreciate it. When a network praises un-constitutional crap like the patriot act and the national ID, let them know how you feel about your personal liberties. Expand the boycott outside of the mainstream media and television. If your senators and congressmen are supporting an un-constitutional bill, let them know they're about to lose your vote.
As amazing and inspiring as the Ron Paul campaign is, it's certainly not producing a modern day revolution. Sure, it may be laying the foundation for a future one, but as a young American, I would prefer a revolution to happen now, before they draft us into Iran. So what do you say? Let's just see how many media stocks we can drag to the ground!
That is, if you really want a Ron Paul presidency and, you know, a free country.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 168 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of A.J. Antimony only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. A.J. Antimony is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Great article, spot on.
I've been sending emails and "trying" to post on Fox, et al forums, but they won't let me; my posts never make it past the censors.
Why? Frankly, because they're scared of me.
Why is that? Well, I always tell them that I will be keeping a Nielsen diary (true) at the start of next month, the Feb. "Sweeps Week".
Plus, my posts not getting through might be because I always add that it will be a great chance for me to say to them:
"Skew you, too."
You are right, I have canceled my Cable T.V service, they asked me why and I told them why, it felt great. I highly recommend it. Keep up the good work and inspiring articles. We are all in this together.
No, no more boycotts. Get out there and go door to door to convince people to vote for Ron Paul. Boycotts will not win elections, only turning out voters for Paul will do so. There are a lot of disaffected Republicans out there who are not firmly committed to any Republican candidate. I myself have had success converting even Democrats to vote for Paul, so go out there and convince your neighbors to vote for Ron Paul. When a brokered Republican convention comes around, expect only Ron Paul delegates to be firm in their support while the other delegates can easily be swept up by the new crop of Ron Paul Republicans.
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2008-01-22 01:50:34
Don't worry, the economy is crashing, and it looks like this time, the dollar is going to go with it.
There will likely be a revolution then, I just hope it's not another FDR revolution - and I doubt it will be, because there's not many people looking toward what they consider a very incompetent government for the solution.
Posted By: Mr. Common Sense
Date: 2008-01-22 02:02:26
So let's use a little common sense here. Fox news is often viewed as right-wing...republican...conservative. Right?
Well, bashing an outlet that reaches the very same voters you need to win an election doesn't sound like a good tactic to me.
Ron Paul's campaign is fatally flawed from the beginning. He has a money-raising machine, but this doesn't translate into votes. His message falls flat on the public.
Nobody wants to hear about his fiscal policies when he sounds like a lunatic trying to blame America for all of the world's ills.
"It's true though!" you may shout all you want. But that message isn't going to resonate with mainstream America. Hence, Paul's poor numbers.
Remember, 2nd place in Nevada sounds great until you say "13%", getting beaten by Romney 4X over. Ouch.
Face the facts: Paul's message isn't popular and shouting off about media conspiracies, boycotting Fox, etc. doesn't help spread a positive image about Ron Paul.
Personally, I think it is great because I don't support Ron Paul. I do think he has a lot of GREAT ideas, they are just horribly executed and this is why he hasn't passed or helped create any useful legislation at all during his tenure in Congress. Paul's track record of "getting things done" is pathetic. Do you keep a .000 percentage hitter on the ball field? Apparently Texas does.
Posted By: Richard Wicks
Date: 2008-01-22 02:19:41
Hahaha. I HAD to comment on this:
"Nobody wants to hear about his fiscal policies when he sounds like a lunatic trying to blame America for all of the world's ills. "
I would like to point out that nobody wants to hear they've made mistakes either.
Operation Ajax (which paul brought up during a debate) overthrew the Iranian Democracy in 1953 and lead the creation of the Islamic Revolution which sprang up to overthrow the police state the US and England put into place.
This Revolution spread far and wide, and Al Qaeda is a distant relative of it.
But what American wants to learn that 50 years ago, their government fucked up, and they are paying for it now? Very few, because they are children. They want to believe that mommy and daddy government is a saint, that daddy government doesn't make gross errors that can get them killed.
I have a message to send to the children of America.
Violent revolution comes about when the cause people believe in is greater than their lives. We may not hit that point any time soon. Hillary and several of the other candidates could not inspire a revolution, because they don't have a message worth dying for.
The Love Revolution is more subtle. The revolutionary from Nazareth was asked who is my neighbor and what the greatest law was. If you put love first, you don't need most of these laws or a tyrannical government. We can take care of each other voluntarily. For that answer, he got the death penalty.
From a superficial perspective you may have some valid points, but your arguments lack the analysis they deserve. You have to look at the big picture, and notice the patterns taking place. For instance, is not only Fox news that is excluding Ron Paul, but also the majority (if not all) of the news media, which have demonstrated an obvious bias against Ron Paul, they see him as a threat to the power establishment. The great majority of the people have NOT been exposed to Ron Paul's message. The only thing normal people may have heard is the negative propaganda by the common news outlets. You are too pessimistic about Ron Paul's chances, because you don't understand the strategy. No doubt the campaign tactics can improve, but the message is being spread and the money bomb results are a reflection of that. It's too premature to discard him. You will be surprised!!
Don't take it personal, but you are too naive to see what is happening. This is a long term movement, the goal is to change the country. The influence the GOP. We need fundamental change, status quo is unacceptable for this country that is suffering as never before. We need to exclude the neo-"conservatives", and bring back the real conservatives to power. We need the restore the power back to the people. Restore the Republic, as it was intended by the constitution. Greater good, which is FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.
Yeah, the truth can be painful. But mature people know they must face truth in order to create real change.
"Change"- where have I heard that word?
Popular concept this season. But real change can be scary and even seem too 'wacko' or 'crazy'.
Besides we haven't hit rock-bottom yet. The sun still rises, September 11th hasn't repeated. (As long as your not comparing numbers of war-casualties to terrorist victims.)
The dollar is falling but still buys the greater share of a third of a gallon of gas. Most of us are working, and our spouses of course, some of us think work is all we do, lol!
Big new arms deal with Saudi Arabia, so free trade is alive and well! Not to mention the sweet diplomacy there, reaffirms our presidents "close personal relationship" with King Abdullah. Good to have friends of freedom we can trust around the world!
And besides, the song-and-dance here at home has been quite a lesson in US civics. Hillary cried with patriotic passion, (or something); Oprah, wow how about that Oprah- practically raised Obama above her head! The Huckster, likable guy- and who can argue with Chuck Norris? Rudy- good ol' boy not afraid to wear a dress. Mitt, so presidential if you ignore his generic speak. Fred- Mr. Law and Order if I ever saw. McCain, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!" What a funny guy!
Mumblings about recession out there, but soon there will be checks sent out to us regular people as an 'economic stimulant package' or something. Good thing we have income tax so we can pay for such things. If we didn't that money would just be sitting doing nothing in peoples pockets instead of solving problems.
Yeah, fiscal policy is boring and it's offensive to hear our economic problems are caused by them.
Unless the dollar becomes worthless; prices go way up; people start losing jobs, cars, houses.... well, until then lets talk about the candidates least favorite food instead!
And quit blaming the USA for all the problems our foreign policy is creating around the world! Are we responsible for the action of our puppet dictators? So a couple of undeclared wars aren't going ducky- we'll show em all in Iran! Freedom is on the march!
And our freedoms are being protected here at home with the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act and other cool little documents.
If your next door neighbor is a terrorist- they will find out through nifty surveillance, and the president (Hillary, Rudy, maybe Jeb Bush someday!) can send him away without a bunch of red-tape and 'due process' crap to clog the system. No pesky lawyers even! Feel safe! Sleep soundly!
Yeah, maybe people won't listen to such a message that Dr. Paul is offering. Too radical, too fringe.
-And now in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians account for 90% of the death toll.
Americans are dissatisfied with the Iraq War, sold through falsehoods of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In 2006 we went to the polls and overwhelmingly chose anti-war candidates from the Democrats to replace the Republican war party. Yet, those same electees did not serve America well. Although they have the power to revoke the president’s war in Iraq by refusing funding, they have chosen to continue to support this terrible foreign policy of war. Why?
The monetary prize for the 2008 presidency is indeed a large one. The budgeted 2008 US Military expenditure is $623 billion. The US spends more than the entire world combined and 10 times that of China, the next largest spender. The new administration will control a purse of approximately that amount.
Where will this purse be spent?
In the presidential campaign little television coverage has been given to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate’s future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar, as they have served either Bill Clinton’s presidency, both Bush presidencies, Carter's presidency, and/or Ronald Reagan’s presidency.
For more information on America's incomprehensible military spending as compared to the rest of the world and a complete list of advisors for all Presidential candidates please go to:
I don't know the original source for this quotation that is attributed to Thomas Jefferson which in reality frames perfectly the problem that is outlined: "When the people fear their government, there IS TYRANNY; when the government fears the people; there is LIBERTY"....the main problem is that a very small percentage of the population using a mere "boycott" doesn't make anyone afraid. There has to be more direct actions to rise the fear factor if people seriously want to retain/regain Liberty over the tyrannical contrivances we are facing ever more as once again Jefferson noted: "Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" and "The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."
well maybe this quote that may be attributed to Jefferson has something to say about the primary problem we face today: "When the people fear their government, there IS TYRANNY; when the government fears the people; there is LIBERTY". I am skeptical that a small number of people are going to illicit the proper fear by boycotting to retain/regain the liberty over those actively promoting and implementing tyranny. I agree that people must take action but it has to make these varied principles in the varied institutions have some real and certain fear. Of course Jefferson also stated, "Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Unfortunately for us the "power" (perverting power) is not merely in the hands of the elected as we see with media demagogues having their way today so braisenly. Be hastened and encouraged by the fact that Jesus is recorded having tossed the money changers in the temple in anger...I bet the changers experienced some fear if but for a few moments on that glorious day!! I am looking forward to emulating the Lord shoulder to shoulder with some of fellow Americans to get the fear back.
I don't know the exact situation in the US, but here in Europe, in our campaigns against a centralized EU, 50% of our efforts are taken by ensuring media exposure.
I mean, whenever we stage an event a lot of effort goes into contacting the media (large and small) and getting assurances, if possible, of coverage - it's not easy, but very, very essential. In fact, an event is useless without coverage as it would be seen only by the few on the streets (if not just youtube).
This, I believe, was missing from the RP campaign - but I may be mistaken... perhaps such efforts were useless given the media blackout on Ron Paul. You need some good contacts for this - but it should be part of any political event.
There's a rEVOLution going on with and for me. While I had been on the net for years, "Googling Ron Paul" has rEVOLutioniized my life...I had been a Meetup organizer for Ralph Nader (when Meetup was free), and after three elections, I know grassroots, this is the best and it's educational. When I first came to Ron Paul, there were no campaign signs. That's how the rEVOLution signs started. Everything was hand made. I have hand made shirts before Cafe Press started selling...and I have a nice collection. So the rEVOLution started on line and remains there, on top, which is also revolutionary.
The rEVOLution is funding the campaign, not visa versa..that's rEVOLutionary.
Ron Paul says, "Thank you for inviting me to your rEVOLution", (www.ronpaul2008.com has a page for the rEVOLution to work LEGALLY with the campaign) so while he may not see a missing WTC 7, he does see a rEVOLution and so do I.
When it started it was all hand made, and now the campaign has signs and more people I mean allot more people..I remember wondering if I would get three people in a Meetup. Now, there's over 100. So please...look at Meetup...WOW 1800 groups? WOW
There's allot of WOWS and that in politics is rEVOLutionary.
It is sad that lesser countries can change their governments by simply going to the streets & protesting elections & media unfairness. In the United States we are too involved hypnotizing our Fat A**es in front of the TV to make a move.
People think there is always a 2nd chance for change....but I believe eventually the truth of democracy is very slowly & gradually forgotten even what it means. We are being used & we hardly care.
Yeah, second in Nevada sounds great UNTIL you realize he got more votes thean Hilary there, and more votes than Obama and Edwards combined. Oh wait, that is great. lol.
Excellent! What will win? Work! Old fashion one-on-one.
My one add to J.C.'s article: Contacting sponsors IS a form of one-on-one. If many wrote to a single sponsor that could get that sponsor to discuss Ron. Thus, the change begins.
But, folks, your neighbor is right next door. Does he know you support Ron? Does he know why?
It is not that hard to move someone from voting for a personality to voting for someone because they want an end to the war, reduced government spending or a bit of freedom.
Posted By: Finland for Paul
Date: 2008-01-22 11:50:35
Nicely said. Every american who really cares about their future and the notion that there WILL BE a future should do whatever it takes to get Ron Paul's message heard loud and clear across your country.
I may exaggerate a little but here's what I think of the situation. Young americans between 18-40, who are used to using internet daily, can get to know who Ron Paul is if they choose to do so. But older people, who still get their "facts" and "truths" from MSM, have no clue who actually is Ron Paul. Of course there are exceptions, maybe even tens of thousands of exceptions, but that isn't a whole lot in a country with some 120-130 million eligible voters in the age bracket of over 40. Those are the people who need to be adressed, those are the people who need to hear a different tune than the one of the great MSM marching band, owned and managed by the power establishment from the Bohemian Grove.
Good points everyone. I'd like to respond to the notion that going door to door would be more effective than boycotting.
First off, if boycotting is not effective, then how was it that Ron Paul found himself invited to the South Carolina debate? This came after a performance in NH that was weaker than Iowa so it wasn't his numbers that changed Fox's mind.
Second, I think everyone needs to go to CNN and check out the state by state results for the entrance polls. In every state, you can clearly see that the highest percentage of voters are those who are over 45 years old. In some states, people over 60 were the highest percentage of voters.
Third, ask yourself a question. Ask yourself "Do I know anybody who votes solely based on party and/or who votes solely for the most electable candidate?" The answer is yes. We all know people like this. Plenty of them too. Even people we think are politically intelligent, such a close relatives. In fact, next time you go into work ask around and I bet most of your co-workers will tell you stuff like "I only vote Democrat" or "Ha! I'm not going to throw my vote away on an unelectable candidate!"
So now ask yourself how would this person even know who the "most electable candidate" is. The answer? Television and newspaper. They flick on the TV and are exposed with nothing but stories and soundbits from the "top tier" candidates. This proves that TV is the best way to get YOUR TYPICAL VOTERS to vote for "fringe" men like Ron Paul. Yes, door to door is good, but in a society where we all hear about "stranger danger" and "they're just selling stuff" some could argue its quite inefficient to knock on doors.
In the age of television media telling people how to vote, THAT is where the battle must be fought.
<<In the age of television media telling people how to vote, THAT is where the battle must be fought. >>
I totally agree. You are amking two good points here.
First, certain methods simply won't work. The grassroots method pf printing flyers simply doesn't have the "leverage" needed to get his message out.
And second, even if these methods did attain the reach that we wanted them to, there is a negative perception assocatiated with certain types of communication. Printing flyers, to me, is very "amatuerish". Generally speaking, I wouldn't hire someone to run the country who I lerned about from reading a flyer stuck in my door.
What you are saying, in short, is that in order for us to "legitimize" Ron Paul we have to market him through channels which most people consider legitimate.
One area where I think there is some room to run with though is the internet. In a situation where a shortage of funds is one of the largest prohibiting factors, the internet provides the low-cost way of leveraging your communication to get the message out. You accurately point out the downside that older people who carry the most voing weight are less internet-savvy. But the trend of the internet becomign a legitimate media source is a trend that is: 1. changing in our favor and 2. will be permanent. So, given the right . Given the explosion of certain viral success stories over the past 5 years (the growth of MySpace, certain YouTube videos, etc), there is a possibility the internet could provide the platform if the marketing campaign is structured correctly.
All well and good, but don't forget that what we need to win is votes, votes and more votes. We'd all be a lot better off if we spent less time bitching and more time knocking on doors. So sign up as a Precinct Leader today and start knocking! https://voters.ronpaul2008.com/grassroots/
kk, you're right that the internet is a great tool. You're also right that it's going to be more and more important as the years go by. However, in terms of the 2008 election, in theory we will know our candidates by summer time, when the conventions are held. This means there's only a few months left to campaign for the nominations in the parties. The simplest, and most effective way to do this is to be exposed on the major networks that everyone watches for politics, like CNN. As you said, Myspace and Youtube have become amazing stories, but over many many years. To produce a youtube-type story in lets say 3 months? Impossible. Especially when you consider that so many internet users are Paul supporters anyway.
In conclusion, I agree with you that the internet is only going to get more and more important, but as of the 2008 election, Paul must get on tv.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
