BACKFIRED-Faux News has given Ron Paul more media attention by not including him than they could have by having him in the debates.
politics.reddit.com/info/64qf3/comments/Posted Jan 7, 2008, 4:52 AM UTC
4731
politics.reddit.com
This is true. One of his biggest challenges is name recognition, and this has brought him a ton of free publicity.
9
Does that mean you think he will do better in New Hampshire as a result?
If he doesn't start to win, and soon, he is out of contention.
Placing 3rd, 4th or 5th won't do it. He has to win most states or he is out.
5
Does that mean you think he will do better in New Hampshire as a result?
I think he'll do better than he otherwise would have. I don't think a win is in the cards. But if it makes you feel any better, it takes over a thousand delegates to get the Republican nod, and only a few score have been committed so far.
The main reason most candidates drop out after a poor showing the primaries is lack of $ to keep the campaign going. I don't think Paul will have that problem.
3
I disagree now with his name recognition. I think everyone has heard his name by now, I have asked several people and they always say they have heard his name. The problem is that people either no nothing about his positions or have heard commenter of his positions that were spun in a negative way.
if Paul ever had a chance to win, it was by educating people on the issues. The best example is the price of oil question given at the debate on Saturday and repeated yesterday by some candidates (I saw Huckabilly repeating it on CSPAN). They say that our energy crisis will be resolved by developing alternative fuels and people fall for this. The truth is that we'll be dependent on oil for decades still and we need a real answer to the issue and not a feel good platitude.
2
The problem is that he is going to get more attention by those who already know and support him. He needs to be shown in the national media spotlight for the - media hungry, mindless Americans to acknowledge him as a viable candidate.
6
Not only that, but the media has to educate the listeners on the problems we face. Despite all the people that hate John Stossel, I think he educates people on the issues before giving people his opinion. Most news programs I see, only view one side of any issue and that is why we were stuck with ethanol as the solution to all our energy needs.
2
Citation, please.
3
Absolutely true. This has also started up a boycott of their crappy news network. I can't believe it took this long.
3
Not to mention their stock is down 7% in the past five days.
1
Completely irrelevant and unrelated.
2
Yeah, product and service have nothing to do with stock price....
3
So is the rest of the market.
1
Definition of irony: Your statement combined with Ron Paul's views on the free market
0
Their product sucks, so it drops. What's not free about NWS's price plummet?
you = really dumb
2
How?
1
Where has the media attention been, other than blogs and reddit, where he got a disproportionate amount of attention before this?
1
FOX has declared war on democracy. This isn't the time to be nice.
1
[deleted]
1
UPMODDED!
0
Your theme-troll username would be more funny if the comment was "DOWNMODDED!".
6
BACKFIRED-Faux News has given Ron Paul more media attention by not including him than they could have by having him in the debates.
I would suspect that it's a net loss of votes, actually. No way of knowing, of course.
-1
[deleted]
Beautiful.
How dare those rebellious colonists oppose the rightful British government here?
No good could come of this...
First we revolted against the British Empire. Then our government became the British Empire. Perhaps we need to overthrow the Anglo-American Empire again.
Wow. I could understand that being kind of alarming.
While one of the YouTube comment posters pointed out that this was nonviolent, I could still see it called intimidating. If a large crowd of college kids was following me around at night and yelling angrily, I could see being pretty scared.
Please keep in mind that Ron Paul has praised Gandhi and Martin Luther King because of their nonviolent methods. He bases a lot of his views on the avoidance of force, which is a pretty standard libertarian take. If you're fans of Ron Paul's views, please keep this in mind.
Paul's advocated freedom of speech, including for those issues that he disagrees with, and the right of people to do what they personally want to do as much as possible. If Hannity wants to criticize Paul, that's his right. You can speak out against Hannity; you can't threaten him. If you do so, you give up the very principles that you are advocating.
Yes, it may be frustrating, but part of living in a society is controlling said frustration and looking for workable solutions.
Finally, from a practical standpoint -- no matter how much you dislike Hannity, I guarantee that a major figure on the largest news network in the United States can find a way to make you unhappy on the eve of important elections.
If you can convince Hannity, you've done quite a bit to help the guy that you're out supporting with those signs. If you alienate him, you're making the path steeper for a lot of other people with a similar goal.
One of the comment posters pointed out that some of the people were throwing snowballs at Hannity until one of the organizers ran around and made them stop. All it would take is a rock scooped up in some of that snow, an injured Hannity, and your day-before-election coverage would be "Ron Paul advocates attack major newscaster".
We've got enough violence and screaming and dislike. We've got too many candidates advocating policies that are going to get a lot more people hurt. We don't need more of that. A lot of those people probably liked Paul because he was positive, stayed on topic, and didn't start swearing at his opponents, no matter how rude or ad hominem the political discussions became. Doing what Paul has scrupulously avoided kinda misses the point, yeah?
You know what I think would have been a lot better for the RP protesters outside the Radisson tonight? If they had all the signs just like they had, but they just stood there in total silence. Not moving, not a word. That would have scared the shit out of me and it would have been peaceful.
Well, it would maybe have been better, but what I'm trying to say is that the goal shouldn't be scaring the shit out of influential people at all, no matter how furious you are at anyone -- Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, Moore, anyone. Hitler used intimidation to get elected. It didn't work out well in the end. Journalists and the press are essential to having a democracy function. Yes, Hannity may be a pretty poor example of a journalist, but a physically fearful journalist is no better.
You know how Ron Paul keeps saying "How would we like it if someone else came and did that to us?" How would you like it if someone started threatening Ron Paul, or his family, or even hurt or killed him? That's a lousy road to start down.
Truly grassroots political efforts can be really neat -- I think that a lot more than anyone expected has exploded out of this, and there are going to be a lot of people chewing over this for some time -- but it also means that small groups can do some things that really aren't good ideas.
My advice would be to back off, keep this peaceful, and remember that Paul's the guy who has been advocating nonviolence. Nonviolence may not be easy -- but in the end, it allows for ideas to float around and compete. Anyone who didn't want nonviolence is probably backing the wrong horse.
If I were Hannity, and I was angry or worried, I'd stick a Fox News camera crew right outside the building so that when I walked out, if there was an angry mob again, there'd be (edited to look particularly bad, of course) footage of a crowd of Ron Paul supporters. Fox cutting Ron Paul out of the debates may be bad, but not nearly as bad as them showing hyped up alarming footage of angry people swearing and yelling at some guy and running after him, all carrying Ron Paul signs. Heck, the footage on YouTube alone could probably work as some nice fodder for attack video. It's counterproductive.
Well you've got a point there. A "not stoop to their level kind of thing." I know they haven't stooped that low either, just saying I get what you're saying.
That would be utterly hilarious.