>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.
To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?
I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but Ron Paul is running a close second, possibly first in delegates. Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries, contrary to your claim, and coming in second in 13 more with up to 36% of the vote. The rub is that is primary vote results, not delegates. The Paul campaign has made no secret that they are working for delegates, not votes...they are not the same thing. The delegates are elected in meetings held AFTER the primary vote, and are not required to vote with the populace...and Paul supporters more than anyone stayed and voted for delegates, and voted for themselves AS delegates, so Paul MAY have the most delegates and be the candidate at this point, there's no real telling until the convention. That was his clearly and publicly stated methodology at the beginning of the campaign, and is one more thing about Paul that was either barely or completely not reported on so few know, and fewer understand.
Hits on Google news are NOT the same as 'media coverage'...on broadcast/print media, Paul is almost completely ignored, is removed from polls AND primary result reporting repeatedly (even when he's close second or even first in polls), and when he is mentioned it's nearly always with derision and mockery. The most Paul reporting I've seen on broadcast was about the voting irregularities that put Romney in first in some states where Paul was somehow completely omitted before results had been reported from precincts, and the like. Again, fuel for conspiracy theorists if not actual conspiracy.
As for Santorum and Gingrich, they are NOT candidates, but are still mentioned (usually with a semblance of respect) on broadcast 'news' infinitely more than Paul, and he is at worst running second (out of 2 candidates left). It is the consistency of the omission and derision of his name in broadcast/print news that creates the APPEARANCE of conspiracy, especially when you consider he's one of two remaining candidates.

Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but Ron Paul is running a distant last place campaign with dismal national polling numbers. He has yet to win a single state primary and has no realistic chance at winning the race. Despite all of this, he gets plenty of news coverage - nearly 10,000 articles on google news.

To contrast, both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich - the second and third place winners in the nomination fight - are getting far less coverage than Paul. Why no tears for the media BLACKOUT on Rick and Newt?

I agree with you that all of the other candidates suck too.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Why is everything a grand conspiracy in the eyes of a Ron Paul supporter? For a group of people so interested in 'personal responsibility' they don't seem very interested in taking responsibility for their own failings. Don't blame the media. Ron Paul is a terrible candidate who does a perfectly fine job of marginalizing himself.


Your statement implies that the other Retardican candidates did not marginalize themselves... but each and every one of them has, (including the front runner) yet they all continue to get air time. At the same time Ron Paul won some primaries (no air time) did exceedingly well in others (ignored), and MAY actually have the most delegates at the convention (his supporters stayed and voted for the delegates, so he may actually be ahead in numbers, people). The media has consistently ignored the Ron Paul campaign from the beginning of the campaign, except when they were taking the time to denigrate and downgrade it.
Why? I have no idea, but they certainly have been singling out Paul to ignore. I still hear them speaking about Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, even Bachman on national news, daily. Talk about marginalized candidates, they are all out of the race completely but are still getting tons of air time. Paul is still running, maybe even winning (probably not, but there's no real way of knowing right now), but never gets mentioned, even when he wins primaries. You can try to make the argument it's because he isn't a winning candidate, but you have to ignore ALL the facts to try to make that argument stick.
If, as you imply, Paul is a terrible candidate, why does he not get the air time that all the other terrible candidates got? Please, I'm looking for a real answer if there is one, not another meaningless, denigrating quip about Paul's inadequacy.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That article makes a good point about Obama dragging this into partisan politics.>> ^RedSky:

Mostly agree with this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endors
es
It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.
Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

Mostly agree with this:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endorses

It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.

Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

First off, Romney does not equal Obama. This kind of thinking is truly what frightens me, and it's not because of the reasons you probably think.

Some 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population were ignorant of politics and apathetic. Political games were played, cheap shots were utilized, but in the end, in the big scheme of things, on the truly big issues, both sides would compromise and do the right thing. Clinton and the GOP Congress balancing the budget, Bush Sr. raising taxes, etc. etc. Stuff got done. And the majority of people were wholly ignorant on things like federal budgets, that kind of thing. There was also some kind of understanding on basic principles where regardless of your ideology, you couldn't do catastrophic things just because it suited your ideology.

Now, that's gone. Extremists in both parties are labelled fascists or communists, or whatever, but now moderates are being labelled as either part of the same extremist groups, or they're called sell-outs, part of a completely corrupt system, and perpetrators of that system, not as agents trying to work within a system that was built long before they got there, who could change the system while they work within it. When they do the right thing that violates ideology, it's not because it was the bipartisan right thing to do; it's because they're extensions of the corrupt system. The bailouts are an absolutely perfect example. I hate to break it to people here, and I know most won't agree with me, but the bailouts were the right thing to do, even if you're against too big to fail, etc. The banking system was already in place when the economy collapsed. It's like being in a boat as its sinking. You can critique the design of the boat all you want, but the boat sinking kills you all. It's ridiculous to talk about actions that will blow up the boat. Plug the holes, do what you need to do to get the boat to land. THEN figure out how to fix the design, or build a new boat. But what happened? The bipartisan policy by both a Democrat and Republican president was tarred and feathered as government being in the pocket of big business. Those same people don't seem to realize the boat didn't sink. We didn't face another depression. Be critical the banking system wasn't significantly reformed after that was done, I have no issues with that.

To the person who said Obama's policies haven't worked in three years? Again, are we in a depression? No. Those policies worked. And how can you expect a macro-economic shift within a year or two of his other policies? Go back and look at economic history. Things don't change on a dime just from macro-economic policies instituted by the government. It takes several years before the effect can be measured. Again, sheer ignorance. The difference today is the ignorant are far more willing to participate in the political debate even though they don't have a clue what they're talking about. This is a problem on both sides.

Both sides are stoking the ignorant to get involved in the public debates, and not encouraging a very very basic understanding of crucial facts about history. Like... WWII was a Keynesian economic exercise effectively, which in the end was a gigantic gov't deficit that did end the Great Depression. This is a very straight forward basic economical historical fact. But there's 30% of the population that will not believe it because it blows apart what they politically favor today. It's ridiculous.

I disagree with Romney, and I probably won't vote for him. But he's not a fascist. There's a significant difference between him and Santorum. And there's a significant difference between him and Obama. Is there a choice as clearly different as say Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader? No. Is that a bad thing? Not in my book.

My fear is in our political ecosystem, the moderates, the good ones who truly aren't compromising for the wrong reasons, but do it to get things done, and have a willingness to ignore ideology for practical solutions that help the country are getting drowned out, and characterized as corrupt when they're not. I disagree with Romney, but he's not corrupt. I disagree with Obama, but he's not corrupt. We don't need a revolution to fix our current political system, but an increasing number of people think we do. And the last decade we're seeing a rise in the extremists on both sides enough to drown out the political moderates we desperately need. This just can't continue indefinitely.

>> ^deathcow:

>> ^lantern53:
Obama's policies have not worked for the past 3 years. If you believe some improvement is coming, you have far more faith than the average Catholic bishop.

obama = romney = anyone else they put forward

No, we're not supporters of Santorum.

BOOM! :-)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You embarrass yourselves every time you start brainlessly running around, regurgitating whatever foamy diahrrea come back up...

>> ^Quboid:

I've no idea actually how large a portion of the American public cared about his lapel.

Nobody I personally know, including Republicans, gave a shit about the lapel pin. Even the biggest wingnuts I know were only concerned with his policies, even if they were totally misinformed about them.

>> ^notarobot:

Nope, sorry Santorum, you have to carry your dead presidential campaign to full term.>

My favorite Santorum comment prior to this was, "Santorum finally pulls out after repeatedly coming in #2."

>> ^Quboid:

Serious question - do Americans respond well to things like that flag in the background?

Speaking only for myself, I find it rather tacky. We have the flag attached to so many selfish purposes on a daily basis that it took until my mid-twenties for me to realize that it's a symbol that should give me a sense of pride or value.

I do suppose it's fitting for a presidential race, but I'd rather something more subdued -- the traditional label pin is fine. Plastering every news room, pro athlete, domestic beer, Ford/Chevy truck, rock band, country singer and golden age comic hero with stars and stripes has left me with a serious case of patriotism fatigue.

Your video, Porn Stars Against Santorum, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Quboid:

Serious question - do Americans respond well to things like that flag in the background?
If David Cameron came out and spoke in front of a massive Union Jack, I and many others would think it looks embarrassing, like he's trying too hard. The flags at the side would be fine; personally I could live without them but that's within the realms of each to their own.


More like they respond poorly to its absence. Back in the '08 election Obama said he wouldn't wear a flag pin on his lapel because words and actions should speak louder than hollow symbols. It didn't take him long to start wearing it again, and as far as I know he still does.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^EvilDeathBee:
That's a pity. People might actually VOTE for Romney! With Santorum, we had nothing to worry about

I think this kind of thinking was actually quite dangerous. There are a LOT of people who are going to vote republican just because they want to vote against Obama. To assume that they wouldn't have voted in a crazy like Santorum is just as naive as when people thought that Bush Jr. couldn't win.


Firstly, ever heard of Swing voters? You know, people who aren't aligned with either Republican or Democrat and may vote based on candidate.
Secondly, "dangerous"? What like looking into the mirror and saying "Bloody Mary" three times... or worse, "Biggie Smalls"? But I do forget voting isn't mandatory in your crazy country
Third and most importantly, it was a joke

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Obama ... becomes more and more shrill every passing day.


Project much?

I think this kind of thinking was actually quite dangerous. There are a LOT of people who are going to vote republican just because they want to vote against Obama.

The logic being that people will take an unknown crazy person over a KNOWN crazy person like Obama. Everyone knows who Obama really is now, as opposed to 2008 when they did no fact checking and just imagined up whatever they wanted and filled the empty husk that is Obama's soul with whatever BS they dreamed he would be. But after 3+ years of his "policies", everyone knows just who this crazed leftist mouth-breather is today - so they'll vote for Santorum or even Ron Paul over the waste of skin we've currently got. Hey - they're 3 years late to the Fact Party, but the GOP will take 'em.

Independants like me who knew thier head from a hole in the ground didn't vote for Obama last time around. This time around Obama is in massive trouble with Independants and Moderates and he becomes more and more shrill every passing day.