Don't Dismiss Ron Paul or John Edwards
Tommy ChristopherAOL News Friday, January 4, 2008
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects
In this case, the Devil is the Mainstream media, and they're trying to convince you that Ron Paul and John Edwards don't exist. Coverage of the Iowa Caucuses has been replete with the usual spin, and Rumpelstiltskin couldn't unspin all of it, but to me, the spin on Edwards and Paul rings particularly false.
First, in the case of Edwards, although the final tally shows Barack Obama leading Edwards by almost 8 points, but keeping in mind the caucus rules and the fact that Edwards led in entrance polls, albeit by a slim margin, and it's hard to consider this a death blow for Edwards. How does he beat Hillary Clinton, yet she's considered "viable" by the MSM yet Edwards should pack up and go home?
Ron Paul is a different story. The Mainstream Media isn't even telling him to pack up and go home, because that would require them to say his name. Maybe they think they're protecting us, but that isn't their job. Perhaps their feeling, to paraphrase Mr. Kint once more:
Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well, I believe in God -- and the only thing that scares me... is Ron Paul."
The spin in this case bothers me because all of the pundits and media types know that the Iowa Caucus results are less an expression of popular will and more of a reaching of consensus. The fact that Ron Paul pulled 10% in Iowa was amazing to me, since he barely campaigned there and he more than doubled Giuliani's result. Once again, the MSM discounts this by saying that Rudy didn't campaign in Iowa. So, they just didn't know who Rudy was?
I know, I sound like a Paul-ite. I'm not, but I also don't like the media shaping the campaign narrative to suit it's own whims. Taking nothing away from Obama, who I think is a great candidate, I thought Edwards and Paul were big surprises. Coupled with Huckabee's runaway victory over Mitt Romney, I think the narrative, or a narrative, should be that populism is playing a big part in this election, and that we ought to keep an eye on Ron Paul and John Edwards.Luckily for Ron Paul, his support seems to be immune to media spin. I would look for him to do much better in New Hampshire. It is a either a failure of imagination or a deliberate manipulation for the media to count him out. The Republican field is a mess, and a relatively unknown quantity like Paul, with a rabid support base, could easily gain momentum as the sunshine of frontrunner status shrinks Huckabee.
For John Edwards, fighting the mainstream narrative could be tougher, but if he's going to succeed anywhere, independent-minded New Hampshire is a good place to do it. I saw Edwards' speech last night, and there was a lot to like about it. If Huckabee's campaign has proven anything, it's that funding isn't the factor it once was.My predictions for New Hampshire? I think John Edwards will finish second to Barack Obama, and I think Ron Paul will be a surprise in third place. Now, I know, you're thinking, "Isn't this the guy who endorsed Chris Dodd?" Yes, I am that guy, but I also knew that he had little chance. This is different. Both Ron Paul and John Edwards have continued to enjoy relatively strong support, despite the media's insistence that they've got no chance. I think New Hampshire is where they put the media on notice.
Tommy ChristopherAOL News Friday, January 4, 2008
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Kevin Spacey as Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects
In this case, the Devil is the Mainstream media, and they're trying to convince you that Ron Paul and John Edwards don't exist. Coverage of the Iowa Caucuses has been replete with the usual spin, and Rumpelstiltskin couldn't unspin all of it, but to me, the spin on Edwards and Paul rings particularly false.
First, in the case of Edwards, although the final tally shows Barack Obama leading Edwards by almost 8 points, but keeping in mind the caucus rules and the fact that Edwards led in entrance polls, albeit by a slim margin, and it's hard to consider this a death blow for Edwards. How does he beat Hillary Clinton, yet she's considered "viable" by the MSM yet Edwards should pack up and go home?
Ron Paul is a different story. The Mainstream Media isn't even telling him to pack up and go home, because that would require them to say his name. Maybe they think they're protecting us, but that isn't their job. Perhaps their feeling, to paraphrase Mr. Kint once more:
Keaton always said, "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." Well, I believe in God -- and the only thing that scares me... is Ron Paul."
The spin in this case bothers me because all of the pundits and media types know that the Iowa Caucus results are less an expression of popular will and more of a reaching of consensus. The fact that Ron Paul pulled 10% in Iowa was amazing to me, since he barely campaigned there and he more than doubled Giuliani's result. Once again, the MSM discounts this by saying that Rudy didn't campaign in Iowa. So, they just didn't know who Rudy was?
I know, I sound like a Paul-ite. I'm not, but I also don't like the media shaping the campaign narrative to suit it's own whims. Taking nothing away from Obama, who I think is a great candidate, I thought Edwards and Paul were big surprises. Coupled with Huckabee's runaway victory over Mitt Romney, I think the narrative, or a narrative, should be that populism is playing a big part in this election, and that we ought to keep an eye on Ron Paul and John Edwards.Luckily for Ron Paul, his support seems to be immune to media spin. I would look for him to do much better in New Hampshire. It is a either a failure of imagination or a deliberate manipulation for the media to count him out. The Republican field is a mess, and a relatively unknown quantity like Paul, with a rabid support base, could easily gain momentum as the sunshine of frontrunner status shrinks Huckabee.
For John Edwards, fighting the mainstream narrative could be tougher, but if he's going to succeed anywhere, independent-minded New Hampshire is a good place to do it. I saw Edwards' speech last night, and there was a lot to like about it. If Huckabee's campaign has proven anything, it's that funding isn't the factor it once was.My predictions for New Hampshire? I think John Edwards will finish second to Barack Obama, and I think Ron Paul will be a surprise in third place. Now, I know, you're thinking, "Isn't this the guy who endorsed Chris Dodd?" Yes, I am that guy, but I also knew that he had little chance. This is different. Both Ron Paul and John Edwards have continued to enjoy relatively strong support, despite the media's insistence that they've got no chance. I think New Hampshire is where they put the media on notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment