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've been reading plenty of
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.
I notice that the article
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 agree that Ron Paul was
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.
So who are you supporting for
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
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 am sorry to have put that
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.
Santorum is often mentioned
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 don't have any credibility
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?
Ron Paul is the only
Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers genuine action to correct our nations problems.
Unfortunately those who favor the status quo are very powerful and are actively working to oppose him.
The republican establishment sure don't want him to win Iowa.
Correction - Ron Paul is the
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.
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
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.
Keep slinging that mud Blue,
Keep slinging that mud Blue, it won't stick.
Funny how the right wingnuts are the ones playing the race card the most nowadays.
You are right, I think, in
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.
NDAA National Defense
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 2012
American citizens can now be detained by the military inside the United States and held indefinitely without charges or due process.
As if they needed any help,
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-...
Totally totalitarian. And
Totally totalitarian. And supposedly necessary to protect our "freedom".
Despite all the various polls
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.'
Yep they sure like to ignore
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.
What Hoooey! No one can
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.
I strongly disagree with Mr.
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.
Social Media
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.