Media Manipulation
In the 2000 elections when no one was listening to Al Gore and George Bush was flying into Flint Michigan onboard the Enron Corporate jet and wheeling nursing home patients out in the middle of the night so he could have a photo-op, there was one Presidential candidate who already had a mass following.
Ralph Nader’s 2000 Presidential campaign, propelled by grass roots Green party locals, achieved early and decisive advantage in acquiring populace support. Across the country Nader’s campaign was funded through speaking events where 6 to 8 thousand people would pay up to $8 a person to hear the Presidential candidate speak.
Several venues were sold out and a local speech here on the campus if the University Of Illinois had nearly as many people waiting outside to get in as the overflow crowd inside. In a Chicago interview he was asked why he thought he would be a good President, whereupon he answered in 3 different languages. When asked if he thought he could navigate the bureaucracy of Washington, he informed his interviewer that he had “successfully sued every federal agency”.
So wouldn’t you think that a Presidential candidate, funding his campaign not with corporate donors but through “charging” people to hear him speak in all the major cities across America would be news?
It would be, except for the fact that Nader was not one of the chosen ones to win.
I’m not sure just how long this “pre-election choosing” has been going on, but I do know it was front and center in the 2000 election and every election since, wherein “certain” candidates are pre-selected as official candidates for electability.
This pre-determination is then manipulated and maintained through the cunning control of the nations media. Mass media empires owned and controlled by a small group of people who obviously have vested interest in making sure the right kind of candidate is elected. Media control so great as to not only control the message but manipulate the events on which they allegedly report.
The 2012 election is shaping up to be another banner guile year, wherein lies and deceit will win over truth and honesty. And no better example is available than that of the Ron Paul campaign and the centrifuge of media blackout being perpetrated against him.
In the 08 campaign, Ron Paul won nearly every straw poll, yet it was never mentioned. This year the money men thought they would try and stack the deck against Paul and openly touted the Iowa Caucus, promoting it big time, by constantly highlighting certain candidates.
This advertising tsunami resulted in the only female candidate winning the Iowa Caucus, but by only 1 point over Ron Paul. The news the next day of course, was all about Bauchmann’s win and the third place finisher dropping out of the race but never any mention of Ron Paul’s second place win.
With Bauchmann’s campaign now in shambles, the latest media darling is the Yosemite Sam of Texas, that rootinist tootnist character called Rick Perry, a C and D college student who goes running each day packing a 9mm with a laser sight. A man who claims to have created jobs, even though the Texas Governorship is little more than a janitorial position since it has virtually no powers.
A Builderberg Man who claims job creation, with half of them being governmental salaries, a state who executes the most people, a school system that ranks last in the nation for high school diplomas, the worst environmental record and I could go on, but you get the idea. A thug of a man for the money men, someone willing to tear it all down and tell the lies needed in order to gain power.
But it is the attack on the real patriot named Ron Paul by the media’s darling Rotwieler that is most telling and the subsequent media blackout of Paul’s campaign successes that tells us who is once again in charge of this years elections. Creating the illusions of success where none lay, as they never allow the honesty of Ron Paul to be heard. http://www.huntingtonnews.net/9134
Here are the debate highlights. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyex8HH6B4c
And how he would fix the economy http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=16160
But my all time favorite is his “What If” speech, the questions no one else dares ask. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4s_IUwwGq-A&ei=rERsTo3sEY3QgAfo-qT1BQ&usg=AFQjCNG7DcKu_mux8yTJgu_MTEzyd3I5-g
The bottom line is that Ron Paul is un-electable even though he is one of the most popular of all the Presidential candidates, because the sheeple are easily lead through the same electoral gate. Ron Paul is unelectable since the men who control America have deemed him a threat to their plans. Because unless you support the Builderberg plan, your chance of ever achieving success in a Presidential campaign is like a snowball’s chance in the third largest desert in the world - Texas.
I strongly disagree with Mr. Paul on many issues, but his blackballing thus far by the media has been truly appalling. Jon Stewart did an excellent piece recently on the lack of attention for Ron Paul. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---c...
The reason Mr. Nader can't be elected president is partially due to the media and corporate blackout you mentioned, but also because of the electoral college and, most importantly, because elections have now become pay-to-play and the candidate with more money almost always wins. It's impossible to keep up with the vast endless streams of corporate cash flowing in from Wall Street to your opponents when you speak out against the evils of Wall Street and the economic mess they have put us in. I voted for Mr. Nader in 2000, 2004, and 2008, and I will do so again if he runs in 2012. I will also have a good laugh at everyone who tells me I'm "wasting my vote." Get in line and vote for the lesser of the two evil corporate-owned bastards, you fringe lunatic you.
What Hoooey!
No one can decide whether the major media or irrelevant or all powerful. One day it's one; the next it's the other. The reason Nader and Paul get no coverage is that they are essentially unelectable. You know it, and I know it. We may or may not like what they say, but does anyone really believe either is looking for more than a bully pulpit? At some point, they simply become tired cranks. At some point, Harold Stassen received no coverage.
People -- media first -- measure money to decide electability. You can't win a national presidential campaign without an ungodly amount of it and a history of electability in a large scale venue. Hence, being a current or former senators and governor is almost a minimum qualification. It used to be much higher than that.
The Atlantic, not long ago, carried a very long and not entirely unflattering profile of Paul. Is it not major national media? Jon Stewart is major media. All the candidates appear in myriad nationally telecast debates on national media. Alan Keyes used to win them handily in polls. But he was never covered as a major candidate, because he was funding his candidacy through giving speeches. You're not a serious candidate when you don't have serious money. Period.
Yep they sure like to ignore and diminish Ron Paul every chance they get.
You see, many of his positions are inconsistent with our Nation's official narrative.
Ron Paul is somebody who I would actually vote for. But I will never get a chance, just like I never really had a chance to vote for Ralph Nader. And lets not forget Ross Perot so soon.
Whenever a viable 3rd party alternative to the 2 party plutocracy raises its baby head, it gets lopped off with the help of the propaganda machine we call the media. Who opposed Nader more than the Dems? And who opposed Perot more than the Repugs?
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance and the playing field isn't even. The deck is stacked, the dealer is dirty, and anybody who believes we have democracy is a fish.
Despite all the various polls that Paul wins, I fear that the controlled media has told the lie that, 'he can't be elected,' often enough that, just like so many Pavlov's dogs (aka: sheeple), too many voters have come to believe it. (Where have I heard that before?...'Tell a lie often enough and eventually it is taken as truth.')
On the other hand, much of Paul's support comes from the younger generation, besides active troops and vets. This large demographic has turned away from the controlled media in droves over the last decade or so. They prefer getting their news and viewpoints from the Daily Show, rather than the overpaid schills offered by the mainstream media. Good for them.
However, my real fear is that even if there is a whiff of the possibilty that Paul would be the Repub contender, there's also the unseen hand to deal with:
Computer Programmer Testimony He Was Requested to Write Code to Rig U.S. Elections
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONOBWuPjFWE
No doubt the bankers and Wall Street exec's will gladly take four more years of Obama rather than someone who calls himself a 'strict Constitutionalist.'
As if they needed any help, now we can spy and report on our neighbors:
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143319965/officials-detail-plans-to-fight-...
You are right, I think, in that the media has generally ignored Dr. Paul. It is really unfortunate, because once he gets the rock treatment that Perry got, and the treatment Gingrich is getting, and the treatment that Cain got, Dr. Paul will get what he deserves. They are ignoring him not because they're afraid of him, they're ignoring so that he will stay in the national limelight a little longer.
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/15/the-ron-paul-newsletters
Check out the old Ron Paul Newsletters for some really good reading. Of course he denies writing much of what was published in his name. But does that matter?
The left wing loves Ron Paul right now because he is taking time from serious conversation in the republican party. They also love him because once he finally loses the republican nomination, the more popular he becomes now the more emboldened he will be to run as a third party candidate. The only purpose this will serve is to help the left, but siphoning off votes from the eventual republican candidate.
Correction - Ron Paul is the only candidate YOU think offers genuine solutions. I think he makes solid points in certain areas. I also think he's a complete crackpot in other areas, is absolutely unfit to run this country, and is there is no doubt he is unelectable either as a third party candidate or even head to head against one of the top 5 worst presidents in U.S. history.
So please, I'm dying to know what you Dr. Paul supporters think about all the blatantly racist statments from the Ron Paul Newsletters? How do you think those statements will play to mainstream voters and media who don't live in Bumbletown, TX or Whitebread, IA. As an aside, I love Texas. Iowa I don't care for so much, just because Bruce Pearl still gets under my craw. But he got his in Tennessee. They always do.
Let us allow Dr. Paul's newsletter to speak for itself. Oh, I know. Dr. Paul denies having written or seen or edited the newsletter that for 17 or so years was named the Ron Paul Newsletter or some variation. Wouldn't you? So here are a few examples of the literary stylings from the Ron Paul Newsletter, which are copied from the the article I attached above. Oh, did I mention that these are from the Ron Paul Newsletter?
____________________________________________________________________
95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
...we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.
___________________________________________________________________
Here is another dandy written in response to the 92 LA riots, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/ron-paul-newsletters_n_1152168....
I read your link carefully. Ron Paul has repudiated what appeared under his name in those news letters. Rockwell actually wrote the stuff. Ron Paul has taken responsibility for allowing Rockwell publish the newsletters under Paul's name.
So my reply to blue is I am not bothered in the least about the statements in the newsletters so long ago. Ron Paul has repudiated them since.
It is your opinion Blue that Ron Paul is a wacko and unfit. If he wins Iowa I wonder what the Repugs will say next.
Sorry, but you don't know who wrote it, because no one is really sure. What we are sure of, however, is that it had Ron Paul's name at the top. But here is some new information for your careful perusal.
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-ne...
No it doesn't bother Dr. Paul drones that the Ron Paul Newsletter was chock full of racist slurs, but it will bother mainstream undecideds who haven't heard about this yet. That's the point. Truth be known some Dr. Paul supporters are true drones, and some Dr. Paul supporters are leftists hoping he'll back door our class warfare president back into the White House for another 4 years of the Doldrums.
So who are you supporting for the nomination, bluegrass?
I recall you said you liked Gingrich some time ago on these boards. Could you explain to me why you are in any position to criticize Ron Paul if you think Gingrich is a good choice? I don't know if you identify with the Tea Party or not, but anyone who does and who thinks Gingrich is a good choice loses all credibility. Ol' Newt has immensely profited from and represents exactly the sort of government largesse, dishonesty and corruption that the Tea Party movement is supposedly fighting against. It is amazing how, despite the blatant hypocrisy of doing so, they are slobbering all over him now, just because he is willing to call his opponents names a lot. And that appears to be all it requires to get the support of much of the Republican base. If Newt is being taken seriously then it is clearly time to give up and accept that Romney is the nominee. At least Romney is willing to acknowledge his massive flip-flops, while Gingrich simply denies them and then insults somebody or something else to deflect blame, which of course is basically his go-to reaction to every question.
If you are truly a conservative, what could your excuse be for supporting Gingrich or Romney instead of Jon Huntsman? Read this quiz and find out which two of those three is really a "RINO" and which one is actually a conservative. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69231.html
I don't have any credibility with Alabaster Jones because I like Newt for president. Sigh... I suppose that's just the weight I'll have to carry. Heavy man, very heavy.
I wrote before, I believed before, and I believe now that of the candidates in the field Newt has the best chance of winning the nomination, and beating Obama. When I wrote that, Newt was at the bottom of all polls. There are things about all the candidates that are good, and not so good. Newt has said and done and written a lot, and some of what he has done and said has admittedly strayed, at times, from a constitutional conservatism. However, of all the candidates, he has done more for true conservatism while in government than any and all the others combined. .
I'm a little confused with your assessment of his campaign though, which leads Newt to believe you haven't really been paying close attention to the whole process. You say he has been calling his opponents names a lot. Of all the candidates he's the one who has kept it most civil, up to this point choosing to keep the focus on Obama, and not each other.
Actually, the best conservative choice in the field is not John Huntsman, it's Rick Santorum and/or Bachman. I just don't happen to stand in line with them as much as others. Huntsman has effectively been out from the beginning. His campaign debates are built around talking about his role as Chinese ambassador, and trying to get people believe he's Reagan reincarnated, which no one really is buying. He comes across as desperate to me.
Good to see you back though, even if it took a little Dr. Paul bashing. I do have a few questions for you though. First, how do you feel about the racist comments on the newletter. Second, do you believe that any of the current conservative candidates would do a better job than Obama?
I don't have any credibility with Alabaster Jones because I like Newt for president. Sigh... I suppose that's just the weight I'll have to carry. Heavy man, very heavy.
I wrote before, I believed before, and I believe now that of the candidates in the field Newt has the best chance of winning the nomination, and beating Obama. When I wrote that, Newt was at the bottom of all polls. There are things about all the candidates that are good, and not so good. Newt has said and done and written a lot, and some of what he has done and said has admittedly strayed, at times, from a constitutional conservatism. However, of all the candidates, he has done more for true conservatism while in government than any and all the others combined. .
I'm a little confused with your assessment of his campaign though, which leads Newt to believe you haven't really been paying close attention to the whole process. You say he has been calling his opponents names a lot. Of all the candidates he's the one who has kept it most civil, up to this point choosing to keep the focus on Obama, and not each other.
Actually, the best conservative choice in the field is not John Huntsman, it's Rick Santorum and/or Bachman. I just don't happen to stand in line with them as much as others. Huntsman has effectively been out from the beginning. His campaign debates are built around talking about his role as Chinese ambassador, and trying to get people believe he's Reagan reincarnated, which no one really is buying. He comes across as desperate to me.
Good to see you back though, even if it took a little Dr. Paul bashing. I do have a few questions for you though. First, how do you feel about the racist comments on the newletter. Second, do you believe that any of the current conservative candidates would do a better job than Obama?
Santorum is often mentioned on FOX even while they ignore Ron Paul. I admire his work ethic and it seems to be paying off in Iowa. He hasn't given up, he is consistent and genuine whether you agree with his positions or not. He has been hiting all the coffee shops, schools, everything in Iowa and I bet he will pull some of the evangelical vote. Bachman I think has gotten defined as a "not ready for prime time" and it is going to be difficult for her to rebrand. But she did win the straw poll so she will also pull some evangelicals.
I am sorry to have put that burden on you good sir, I only hope you can live with it.
First off, I will note your consistency in supporting Gingrich. Congratulations on being one of the few GOP primary voters who hasn't seemingly changed their mind every other week or so since primary season began. However, I suppose it is all a moot point now that voters have moved on from their brief flirtation with him after they remembered that he was Newt Gingrich.
Now on to your questions. I think that Ron Paul has shown poor leadership on the newsletters issue. Even if he strongly believes that the letters are irrelevant and a distraction from serious issues, and he clearly does, he still needs to take responsibility for the content in them, say he made a serious mistake in letting that sort of content get out there with his name attached to it, and move on. Pouting, getting defensive, and refusing to talk about it is never a good strategy for a politician in the face of scandalous accusations. Just ask Herman Cain.
As for the current field, I would consider voting for Paul, Huntsman, and maybe Romney over Obama if it were a two person race. I find the rest of the candidates either abhorrent or completely unqualified to lead the country, most of them both. Just about any chance of me voting for Obama vanished after his strong support of the indefinite detention bill. Anyone who shows that little regard for civil liberties (especially after making them part of his platform in the previous election) doesn't get my vote. More than likely it will be Romney vs. Obama and I will likely vote third party, especially if former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination.
I agree that Ron Paul was blacked out of media coverage for a while, but he is starting to get attention now. I see the pundits yammering about him when I flip channels and I have seen plenty of stories about him for a good month or two on many of the "mainstream" political news sources I frequent.
Point is, probably time to drop the media blacklist meme now. If you want to convince people reading these posts to vote for Ron Paul, I might suggest that you try to connect with them on the issues that matter to them and explain how Dr. Paul's platform might benefit them and the country. That would be more productive than posting insular rants that will relate to nobody who doesn't already agree with you.
I notice that the article about people shopping for shoes has been made read only. If those people behaving badly were OWS protestors, the police would have moved in with force and shut them down. But then again, these people are spending money at the sponsors of this paper so don't expect equal treatment by either the police or this paper.
I've been reading plenty of alternative media, including the Ron Paul Newsletter. That's all I need to know about Ron Paul. In addition to him being unfit to be an president due to his positions on national security, once the mainstream media decide to bury him they will have no problem painting him as an anti-semitic racist of the first order. They buried Perry with a rock on a Texas farm. Dr. Paul can talk all he wants about how he wasn't the author, wasn't the editor, and didn't know what was in the newsletter. It's all rubbish. The bottom line is that it was the Ron Paul Newsletter and it contained unsigned rascist and anti-jewish commentary. End of story.
We'll know all we need to know about Dr. Paul once he ends up losing the republican primary. He may do well in Iowa, but he will not do well anywhere else. Once he loses the national primary, which he will, what will he do? Will he do what is best for the country, and put his support behind the person who is facing one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States, or will he do what is best for himself and run as a 3rd party, which he has NO CHANCE of winning? Time will tell.
Update: Iowa and New Hampshire have both voted for more wars for Israel.
Ron Paul wouldn't last very long as President. History proves that those presidents that act to break up the banking cartel end up being assassinated. At Mr. Paul's age it wouldn't even take a bullet. An induced heart attack during a hospital stay for a minor cause would do the trick.
But, in a sense, Ron Paul has already won. By sticking to the US Constitution during his entire career, and spreading the 'liberty & freedom' message to millions of young people, he has already made his mark in history. My favorite Ron Paul sign? 'Ron Paul cured my apathy!'
And for those who have swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker, that he is a racist, probably also believe that the President of Iran threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map,' and I only have the following quote for those 'unthinkers:' Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'
Funny how some people can take the whisper of reality, the faintest whiff of a fact, the tiniest shred of a particle of evidence, add a whole lotta conjecture, throw it all into a big pile and call it the absolute truth that only the most courageous have the ability to believe. We sheeple call this a conspiracy theory. And yet, presented with 10 years worth of black and white evidence of a newsletter that has different variations of names all of which contain "Ron Paul," facts become so easily cast aside like, well, yesterday's newsletter. Furthermore, those who dare to bring up black and white facts are chastised as "unthinkers." In addition, it apparently is now a sin to believe that someone who puts out a racist newletter is, in fact, a racist.
If one wants to that Ahmadinejad didn't say "wipe Israel off the map," I would entertain that. Not being a student in the lingustic nuances of Arabic, Persian or Islamofacist Puppetmasterism, I freely admit I haven't the slightest clue. However, even if he didn't say that specific phrase, one can still look to the body of work that the mullahs in Iran like to put out about Israel. This handiwork cannot be denied. Anyone can make a mistake one time, but when you put out a body of work, like for instance 10 years worth of a newsletter with your name at the top, that is what really provides a window into the reality of a situation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-re...
The fallout from the Ron Paul Newsletters is not media manipulation. The fallout from the Ron Paul Newsletter is the consequence of putting out a racist newsletter.
First, I want to apologize for using that disparaging label. It's truly not my way to be condescending, it's just that I get frustrated by some who have not done their homework. I've done little except research on a variety of subjects over the years and thanks to the internet I don't even have to leave the comfort of my home. The over-riding lesson that I've learned so far, and I learned it years ago, is summed up in the opening sentence of an article written by the now-retired truth-teller, Charley Reese. 'One of the hardest things for Americans to accept is that their leaders will lie to them.' I've heard those lies and recognized them as such ever since the presidency of George Bush the Elder, when my political awakening began. 'Desert Storm,'...just another war based on lies to justify building up the US Empire using the blood and treasury of the
US taxpayer.
When I communicate my reasoning for holding some of the opinions that I have, it is because of this homework that I have done, the thousands of articles, books, and videos that I have read and watched in alternative media. Why 'alternative media?' Because of the propaganda that was later proven to be lies spewed forth by the mainstream media. Think of the childhood story of, 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf.' He lied every time he cried 'Wolf!,' and eventually the townspeople simply started ignoring his lies. Our mainstream media now walks in lockstep with pronouncements from the Administration and the leaders of Congress, instead of being the public's watchdog as was intended by our Founding Fathers. According to the latest figures that I've seen, 97% of the public is being 'informed' by six families. We've experienced first-hand the result of independent oil companies and gas stations being swallowed up by the bigger ones (I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers the occasional 'gas wars'), now the price of gas at the pump seems to all rise and fall in unison nationwide. You could say that the price of gas is now 'fixed' by a small number of oil company executives,...a cartel, if you will. Is it so hard to imagine the same thing occurring in the US mainstream media? The oil companies could charge a lesser price for gas, just like the media could tell the truth. But their goal is to make more money, not less. The Supreme Court may have ruled that corporations have the same 'rights' as people, but they have no 'morals,' they have no loyalty to the US public.
When I talk to people and spoon-feed them some little known facts, I always tell them, 'Don't believe me, do your own homework, look it up for yourself.' Out of those thousands of sources of information, I've kept little of them for reference. I don't do all this research for anyone but me in order to see 'the big picture' and watch how it evolves. I did a quick search, however, for a couple of examples out of many that have formed the basis for my opinion on the two topics mentioned:
Is Ron Paul a racist? - I got this from doing a search on of the two websites that I regularly monitor, whatreallyhappened.com As always, anyone is more than welcome to prove this is false and I will 'man-up' and admit that I stand corrected.
Originally written in Jan 2008 -
"Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment."
Oh, yeah...he IS a threat.
Also this video about an event during the '60's. A black man enters a hospital with his white pregnant wife who is about to go into labor. All the doctors shunned them EXCEPT for Dr. Ron Paul. Does that sound like something a racist would do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
Did President Ahmadinejad of Iran threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?
The full quote translated directly to English:
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1751895/pg1
When the USSR failed and broke apart, did the countries 'vanish from the face of the earth?'
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsle...
An excerpt from the article reads,
"1985 to 1994
The controversial statements that have surfaced stem largely from this period. They were contained in newsletters with titles like Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter, rarely under a byline (although many contained first-person references that readers would assume referred to Paul himself).
Some samples: A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' "
Another letter said "I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Report labeled former Rep. Barbara Jordan (D) of Texas "the archetypal half-educated victimologist," according to the Houston Chronicle."
These are only a few of the nuggets mined from the decade of brilliance that was the Ron Paul Newsletter. There are more. We all know there are more. Ron Paul and his followers say either it doesn't matter, he didn't know about it, it didn't happen, or he apologized for it so it's no problem. So which one is it?
Okay, so I'll play along and assume for the moment that Ron Paul, as most of his followers claim, is not a racist. At the very minimum, he benefited either monetarily or with publicity or both, from putting out a newsletter that contained incredibly racist commentary. Even if I believe in some of the things Ron Paul says, that fact the benefited in some way gives me the intellectual freedom to disallow him as a potential candidate. I do agree with Paul that the number one threat to our republic is our national debt. However, I don't believe that the solution to that problem is re-electing Obama.
In politics on a certain level, it doesn't matter what your record is. One mistake, even something that really has no impact on your political leanings at all, can sink you. Dan Quayle's potatoe, Weiners weiner text; the list is long.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletter-iowa-caucus-...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsle...
An excerpt from the article reads,
"1985 to 1994
The controversial statements that have surfaced stem largely from this period. They were contained in newsletters with titles like Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter, rarely under a byline (although many contained first-person references that readers would assume referred to Paul himself).
Some samples: A December 1989 newsletter quoted by James Kirchick in the New Republic predicted "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.' "
Another letter said "I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul Report labeled former Rep. Barbara Jordan (D) of Texas "the archetypal half-educated victimologist," according to the Houston Chronicle."
These are only a few of the nuggets mined from the decade of brilliance that was the Ron Paul Newsletter. There are more. We all know there are more. Ron Paul and his followers say either it doesn't matter, he didn't know about it, it didn't happen, or he apologized for it so it's no problem. So which one is it?
Okay, so I'll play along and assume for the moment that Ron Paul, as most of his followers claim, is not a racist. At the very minimum, he benefited either monetarily or with publicity or both, from putting out a newsletter that contained incredibly racist commentary. Even if I believe in some of the things Ron Paul says, that fact the benefited in some way gives me the intellectual freedom to disallow him as a potential candidate. I do agree with Paul that the number one threat to our republic is our national debt. However, I don't believe that the solution to that problem is re-electing Obama.
In politics on a certain level, it doesn't matter what your record is. One mistake, even something that really has no impact on your political leanings at all, can sink you. Dan Quayle's potatoe, Weiners weiner text; the list is long.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletter-iowa-caucus-...
Paul-Haters Caught Planning To Dress Up As KKK, Pose As Paul Supporters
http://www.theendrun.com/paul-haters-caught-planning-to-dress-up-as-kkk-pose-as-paul-supporters
First and foremost, thanks for the civil discourse. Second, thanks for the "return" tip. I'll give it a shot.
My point with regard to the Paul stuff is that the media doesn't need to manipulate what is there in black and white, and to be honest I don't even see much talk about it except for in our posts.
I'm not sure what you mean by the media trying to "destroy" the man. This is the point I've been trying to make with regard to media manipulation. I feel like Paul has gotten a free pass by the majority of mainstream media for a reason. I don't think there is some left wing journalism club, although there has been some evidence of this in the past. However, I think that most journalists are likely lefties at heart. I also believe that most journalists believe, as do I, that the better Paul does, the better the chance of Obama being re-elected, which is why he is generally being ignored.
Paul never had a chance in the GOP primary to begin with though. There was certainly far less news coverage of Paul than there should have been, but it's his views and not the news coverage that hurt his candidacy the most. Most Republican primary voters are extremely repelled by some his views, particularly on foreign policy.
His ideological consistency may have helped him gain the supporters he had, but it killed his chances with the rest of the primary voters in many ways. In particular, I thought the should have bit the bullet and pandered a little on Iran, emphasizing that he wouldn't sit on his hands if Iran committed acts of aggression against the U.S. His refusal to take responsibility for and/or adequately explain the racially questionable newsletter content was another big mistake.
I imagine Paul would do a lot better than Santorum or Gingrich in a general election though, and almost all the polls I have seen suggest that.
The upcoming Michigan primary may very well ultimately determine if Romney is the nominee or not. Some chatter out there that losing his home state to Santorum (Santorum currently is up double digits in the polls there, wow!) is the one thing that could really deliver a fatal blow to his candidacy and end the current general assumption that he is still the inevitable nominee. Despite his current surge, Santorum can't be taken too seriously either. He lost his Senate seat a few years ago by a larger margin than any incumbent senator had lost by in decades. Plus, Republicans need women and independents to trend their way instead of repelling them.
So maybe there will be a brokered convention. Conventional wisdom says that would be a disaster, and that the nominee would be too wounded to have any chance to beat Obama, but I think it would be worth it for them if they could get someone like Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio or someone else who some people might actually be excited to vote for. If Romney is the nominee and beats Obama, it will be because Romney voters want Obama out of office, not because they actually like Mitt or have any enthusiasm towards Mitt, the dullest and most robotic candidate you could ask for and who apparently was tragically born without a personality.
Wow? Where to begin, when you censorily disavow the news media, as to what in the world you are relying upon, as sources of information. Gossip, rumor and opinion become your standard sources of what is or is not that fact in the world?
You quote as fallows: "Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask: by whom has it been elected, and to whom is it responsible?" --Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Well, I'd dare reply to him, or you, this way: who said the arbiters of truth were matters of popularity, of elections, one way or the other?
For Solzhenitzen, that would be a primary lesson, of understanding that not everything in the world is controlled by the government, as was the case of the world in which he matured as a person. For you, though, it ought to be elementary to observe that there is, in fact, no big bad wolf of a unified media conglomerate -- no controlling news source.
There is, of course, media competition, the side effect of which is that the media listen to one another, as well as to other sources, in trying to decide what the "story" is, the one that the people want to hear about.
So, when the media begin to blather, about this issue or that, about this candidate or that, there is always the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy, that what the media thinks the people want to hear about, in their news coverage, will, in fact, curiously, perhaps, be what the people want to hear about, or, even maybe not.
Now, it seems to me, if some part of the media has got the message wrong, then they will quickly pay for it, because audience ratings will fall, advertisers will pressure them to get it right or else they'll spend their dollars elsewhere.
For, afterall, that is what the media, every one of them, is after -- income and money -- for, no matter how inflated the media may be, egotists all, at the end of the day, the month, the quarter, the year...they have to balance the books. That is the heart and soul of fair and balanced news, not some idealistic sense of the just and true, but some compromised idea of what, in the end balances all the competing responsibilities.
Some like Fox news, IMHO, are greedier than other media outlets, but greed is only an inappropriate excess of the desire to please (for profit), a fawning if you will, a catering to the vices of ignorance, which you know you'd rather be reinforced in your beliefs, than informed about how the facts lie against your views.
The media, in its entirety, is there for you to discern, as to how it is telling the truth, and who is merely misleading you, because you are willing to be fooled, as, for instance, so many who follow Fox news, or Limbaugh, are willing to be fools.
If I may jump in here, let first say that, while I would never speak for Penteller, we're on the same page on this issue. It is my contention that the US media is controlled in that we're told what they want us to know, not what we need to know. Although our Founding Fathers included a 'free press' as one of our 'rights,' their intention was that the press could report freely any instances of crimes or corruption in or government without being persecuted or prosecuted for it. The purpose of a 'free press' was to be the ever-vigilant watchdog for We the People, because, being an agrarian society, the vast majority of citizens were busy tending their farms and unable to travel at will to DC and make sure our political leaders were on the up and up.
Now it may be difficult to address certain arguments you pose, because you are not using the English language properly. I noticed this on almost all of your other posts also. I'm not beating you up about it, as long as the person conveys his message, I can overlook any mis-spelling, made-up words, or improper word usage. Example: '...you censorily disavow the news media...' I couldn't find a definition for 'censorily.' What did you mean to say?
At any rate, in the many forums that I've taken part in, usually one party will eventually question the 'credibility' of the other's source of information. If the source happens to be an article or blog from the internet, then the retort will most likely be, 'Oh, people can say anything on the internet.' Implying that the internet articles or blogs aren't credible, or at the least, not as credible as the talking heads of the few mainstream news media (MSM) we have left.
If you're familiar with the child's tale, 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf,' then you know why I summarily dismiss anything that is heard on the ABCCBSNBCMSNBCFOX entertainment/news channels. Just as the local villagers heard the boy falsely cry, 'Wolf!' just to get their attention and knew to avoid him altogether, after hearing so many lies propagated by the MSM over the years by those who have the resources to know the truth, I also have learned just to ignore them altogether. By spreading, or repeating false propaganda 'intentionally,' I'll go another step farther and declare that the MSM obviously has an agenda (corporate globalism = the New World Order) and is our enemy.
As an aside at this point, I find it very ironic that the majority of people rightly complain of the price of gas at the pump, how it rises and falls in almost perfect 'sync' with each other, rightly put the blame on a lack of competition between the big oil corporations, saying that they're in bed with each other, but for some unknown reason cannot recognize the same cause and effect with the news corporations.
Perhaps the best example of the power of the news media was a quote by the granddaddy of 'yellow journalism,' Randolph Hearst, prior to the Spanish/American War over a hundred years ago. At that period of time the US had conquered the West and our government was anxious to spread it's empire farther. Cuba was an enclave of Spain at the time and local Cubans, as they had before, rebelled against their oppressors. A minor rebellion started and US newspapers rushed their journalists and photographers to the scene. After waiting around for some action for a few weeks one of Hearst's reporters wired him with a request to return home, stating 'There is no war here.' Hearst wired back for him to stay. 'You supply the stories, I'll supply the war.' And he did...
The controlled media doesn't just lie us into unnecessary wars. Hearst, again, often printed false tales of 'Negroes snorting cocaine, wrecking cars and raping white women,' and the public ate it up. When Prohibition was repealed, all those G-men, including his nephew, suddenly found themselves unemployed. Hearst didn't think it was right for his own nephew to have to get a real job, so he set about making an edit to those earlier stories. Now he was printing new ones saying that 'Negroes were smoking marihuana, wrecking cars and raping white women.' Most people had no idea what marihuana was. If Hearst had identified this new 'threat' as hemp, then people would have wondered if he was smoking it, because everyone knew what hemp was. Doctors knew what marihuana was, it's oil was in about 40% of all pain medications. But Hearst's nephew, Henry J. Anslinger, took an armful of his uncle's newspapers across the country to DC, told Congressmen of this 'new' threat to US society, and had them read Hearst's news stories as 'proof.' One congressional hearing was held on one day, a law prohibiting pot was passed, and the rest is history. The G-men were back to work, and making Anslinger the head of the new bureaucracy was the icing on the cake. That's power...
More recently, whenever national tragedies occur, scores, if not hundreds, of news reporters swarm the scene of the crime. In the first hours we'll hear of 'conflicting reports,' but soon enough government officials will handily describe the sequence of events, MSM reporters will parrot the 'official line,' and that will be that. Anyone questioning the 'official explanation' is immediately branded as a 'conspiracy nut.' It happened at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City, Desert Storm, the events on 9-11, the War on Terror, the attack on Saddam, etc. Individuals cannot credibly question government official explanations. They are, after all, professionals with access to inside information.
Well, DLE, you wanna know why all MSM is losing readers and viewers? Competition. Saddam didn't have WMD's, now did he? Will you concede that we now know that this was a lie? Name me one of the MSM that questioned the validity of the claim that he did by Bush and his neo-cabal. Can't do it, can you? Where was this 'media competition' that you speak of? No, the only competition to the MSM is the WWW. That's why every year there's a clamor in the legislature for internet censorship. People are realizing that the truth will not be found in the MSM. It's only available on the internet. Get on there and print everything you can because the day will almost certainly come when the powers-that-be will succeed in controlling what we have access to. That's how powers keep control. No one gives up power voluntarily, it must be taken from them. After all, that's how they got it.
So in closing, DLE, pray tell me which news organiztion 'hasn't' been downsizing? Google 'Operation Mockingbird.'
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.