I was almost finished with my response to his opinion-seeking email when I realized, "Oh, I have a new blog. I wonder what other Ron Paul supporters would say about what I've written." That's when I decided to make my response to him into a post here on my blog.
To set the stage, if you will, here are the videos that he sent to me. These are two videos that discuss the media's treatment of, or dismissal of, Ron Paul as a viable candidate for the 2012 Republican nomination.
"Cnn And Politico Admit Ron Paul Media Conspiracy!"
This video is from 2008:
"How Media Spins a Story"
The following is my opinionated-response to these videos that my new Ron Paul-supporting friend was seeking, as well as my opinion of Ron Paul as a candidate, as a whole:
The media's desire (need) to elect a president is not more obvious to anyone other than a Sarah Palin supporter. You Ron Paul fans may have been experiencing this (depending on how long you've been a supporter) for the past 12 years (he's run for Pres the last 3 elections, right?) But, I can probably much more easily prove the media "bias," via the form of outright attacks, against Palin much more easily than I can prove the bias against Paul. (If someone can list the attacks against Ron Paul in the comment section below, I'd LOVE to see them. Thanks!)
When Ron Paul drops out of the race (he'll be eliminated during the primaries...he won't even be on our Nebraska ballot, as in years prior) you Ron Paul fans are going to need to choose a new candidate. If you choose to vote for "no one," you'll be complicit in the re-election of BO...I say this because I've seen many comments by Paul supporters to this effect all over the internet...that they won't vote for anyone if they can't vote for Ron Paul. However, I've seen these kind of comments from ALL KINDS of supporters though, it's not solely the Ron Paul fans that say this. Nevertheless, I state this again, to all Ron Paul supporters: If you abstain from voting in the 2012 election you will be complicit in the "transformation" of this country.
You have to have noticed how things have changed since Rick Perry (dammit..same initials as Ron Paul...I suppose this is some Bilderberg attempt to de-legitimize "RP") entered the race. Don't feel bad for ONLY your fellow Ron Paul supporters, feel bad for the Bachmann fans, too. That HAD to be a HUGE slap in the face to her & her $30/vote "supporters" (as is the case with ALL Iowa straw poll "voters") following her straw poll "win." Right? (Yes, I know...Ron Paul doesn't pay for his voters to "vote" in the IA straw poll...Bachmann did...supposedly.) Oh, wait, after a quick Google search, it seems I have been "misled" by whatever media outlet led me to believe that Ron Paul does NOT pay his IA straw poll voters. Here's a link I came across that suggests otherwise.
I think the IA straw poll is a media-created circus. They need SOMETHING, about which, they can report. The Iowa straw poll is NOT a predictor, by any means, of the eventual candidate. It never has been consistent and it never will be. If ever we need an example of what the effect of making people "pay to vote" would be, we can turn to the Iowa straw poll. Talk about "buying an election." What a fraud.
The entrance, and subsequent polling results, of candidate Rick Perry has shown that the race hasn't even begun yet. There's still talk of Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie entering, not to mention Sarah Palin. There's even been mention of Paul Ryan entering the race (PR...hmm...a reversal of "RP's" initials...wonder what that means). There's also been SOME talk of Marco Rubio jumping in, too. I can go WAAAY out on a limb and suggest that Allen West "hasn't made up his mind yet," either (although, I really think he has...some don't...but, I didn't think Christie...according to things he's said...would still be "considering it," either). What do I know? Omg, what about Donald Trump?
Here's the skinny on why I think the media shafts Ron Paul: They truly believe that he is NOT electable (there may even be a segment of the left that is AFRAID of him, as they are of Sarah Palin). If you've been a supporter of Ron Paul's for long you HAVE to have heard that "he's not electable." I'm not one to encourage others to abandon their morals or their principles...but, at some point, Ron Paul supporters have to be able to acknowledge that simple fact. I understand "getting caught-up in" supporting a candidate. I can admit that I'm NOT an "objective critic" of Sarah Palin's.
I'd love to hear a Ron Paul supporter say that they really don't think he'll ever be elected (and then, of course, go off on some diatribe about how "others just don't understand" and how we have no respect for and/or how we don't understand the Constitution, which has been my experience with MANY Ron Paul supporters).
*****WE GET IT.*****
Ron Paul stands for Liberty (which we love).
Ron Paul stands for the Constitution (which we love).
Ron Paul stands for eliminating (or at LEAST auditing) the Fed (which many of us love).
BUT, Ron Paul also stands for NOT standing up for our allies (Israel, for one) (which many of us despise).
Ron Paul stands for decreasing our military power (which we despise).
(Of course, there's more that Ron Paul is for and against, I'm not here to list them all. I'm here to list the "big ones.")
There ya go. That's pretty much it. Ron Paul is unelectable in America. We Conservatives, and most Republicans, tend to LOVE our "national defense." It's one integral part of what helped make this country what it is (or was) today. Do the ROE's (Rules of Engagement) NEED to be changed for our warriors? YES! If the damned politicians would get the hell OUT of our military "ventures" (SINCE VIETNAM) we, as a nation, wouldn't be in the situation we're in. We would have kicked-ass and settled things in Afghanistan YEARS ago. We would have ended the BS in Iraq YEARS ago (if it ever would have begun in the 1st place). We would have gotten rid of Gaddafi in Libya MONTHS ago (if we would have gotten involved at all). We would have ended the brutalization of and rampant raping of women in the Congo YEARS ago, too. We need to return to who we were YEARS ago, too. But, FIRST, we need to "right our own ship." Then and ONLY then, will we return to the "superpower" that we were YEARS ago.
Ron Paul doesn't support any of this. Therefore, Ron Paul is unelectable in America where her people care about the treatment of not only her own citizens but also care about standing up for what is good and what is right throughout the world. Yes, there is much to be said about being the "world's policemen." If we don't do it, who will? If we can't afford it, what happens to liberty, not only in the United States, but the world over?
Has the United States stood for ALL that is right on every single policy or humanitarian cause in the world? Ashamedly, no. Would Ron Paul stand up for ANYTHING worldwide that IS our business as a "right and just people?" No. This is one reason (among others) why "the majority" will continue to reject him as our President. As Bill O'Reilly keeps repeating ad nauseum on his show, we ARE a "moral nation" and we should continue to be so.
Also, in saying "continue to," I refer to how we have been perceived by the world in the past, not how we are now. Is this to say that I CARE what the world thinks of us? Yes. If they don't FEAR US they'll gang up on us. I don't like to be bullied. Do you?
(And, if Ron Paul becomes the nominee, I'll vote for him over Obama.)
