PDA

View Full Version : Interviewed for a story, then they change the topic




RPTXState
05-09-2008, 02:28 PM
I was interviewed by Dr. Mihalkanin (a po-sci professor at Texas State) for a local online paper regarding my challenge to the State GOP following rule violations at our convention. Either his editor stepped in or he changed his mind, but instead of talking about our local challenge, he wrote about how Ron Paul cost Romney the nomination :mad::confused::confused:

http://newstreamz.com/2008/05/09/ron-paul-effect

Ron Paul effect?
While almost all of the political class talked about the effects that the top three Republican candidates, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Gov Mike Huckabee, had on the race, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy may have had an important early effect in this year’s primary season.

Paul received ~10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus on January 3rd, and he received 8% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary on January 8th. Huckabee won the Iowa contest with 34% of the vote followed by Romney with 25% and former senator Fred Thompson and McCain at 13% each.

Did Paul’s numbers have an effect on Iowa? Many people have identified three main wings of the Republican Party today. There is the defense wing represented by McCain, the social values wing represented by Huckabee, and a limited government business wing represented by Romney. Look at potential republican voters distributed among the three wings, in many ways, Romney and Paul both were appealing to the limited government business wing of their party.

Let’s look at Paul’s numbers. Paul received more than 20% of the vote in Montana and North Dakota, and he received from between 10% and 19% in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Who won those states? Romney won six states, Huckabee won two and McCain won one, Pennsylvania, after Huckabee and Romney had dropped out of the race.


If Paul had not won, it is conceivable that the Paul voters in the states mentioned would have saw Romney as being the candidate closest to Paul out of the three main candidates in contention. Paul’s votes added to Romney’s in Iowa makes Romney the winner of that state and adding Paul’s 8% to Romney’s in New Hampshire makes Romney the winner of that state as well. On Super Tuesday, Paul’s 4% in Missouri given to Romney’s would have given Romney the victory over McCain in the “Show Me” state.

Paul’s candidacy hurt Romney’s campaign in a secondary way. Paul’s strong showing in Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota on Super Tuesday delayed knowing who had won those state’s Republican contests until the next day. When people turned off the evening news in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, Romney had been given only two states: Massachusetts and Utah, which the pundits dismissed since Romney was the former governor of Massachusetts while Utah was overwhelmingly Mormon. When people turned off their TVs that night McCain and Huckabee were the big winners and Romney was the odd man out. Conceivably with Paul out of the race, the visuals on election night would have looked much better for Romney and made him appear more competitive than Huckabee.

If Romney had won either Iowa, New Hampshire or both, the Republican presidential calendar could have played out differently. McCain not winning New Hampshire possibly could have given both Guliani and Thompson stronger legs to run on. Earlier notices of Romney’s Super Tuesday wins would have also helped.

There are reasons to disagree with this analysis but the mainstream press has not been discussing Paul’s effect on the Republican contests as much as is warranted.

By ED MIHALKANIN, Ph.D

EDIT: I've been told that my "real" story might get published. Directed to Ed's voicemail when I called him.

constituent
05-09-2008, 02:33 PM
I was interviewed by Dr. Mihalkanin (a po-sci professor at Texas State) for a local online paper regarding my challenge to the State GOP following rule violations at our convention. Either his editor stepped in or he changed his mind, but instead of talking about our local challenge, he wrote about how Ron Paul cost Romney the nomination :mad::confused::confused:

http://newstreamz.com/2008/05/09/ron-paul-effect

Ron Paul effect?
While almost all of the political class talked about the effects that the top three Republican candidates, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney, and Gov Mike Huckabee, had on the race, Congressman Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy may have had an important early effect in this year’s primary season.

Paul received ~10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus on January 3rd, and he received 8% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary on January 8th. Huckabee won the Iowa contest with 34% of the vote followed by Romney with 25% and former senator Fred Thompson and McCain at 13% each.

Did Paul’s numbers have an effect on Iowa? Many people have identified three main wings of the Republican Party today. There is the defense wing represented by McCain, the social values wing represented by Huckabee, and a limited government business wing represented by Romney. Look at potential republican voters distributed among the three wings, in many ways, Romney and Paul both were appealing to the limited government business wing of their party.

Let’s look at Paul’s numbers. Paul received more than 20% of the vote in Montana and North Dakota, and he received from between 10% and 19% in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Who won those states? Romney won six states, Huckabee won two and McCain won one, Pennsylvania, after Huckabee and Romney had dropped out of the race.


If Paul had not won, it is conceivable that the Paul voters in the states mentioned would have saw Romney as being the candidate closest to Paul out of the three main candidates in contention. Paul’s votes added to Romney’s in Iowa makes Romney the winner of that state and adding Paul’s 8% to Romney’s in New Hampshire makes Romney the winner of that state as well. On Super Tuesday, Paul’s 4% in Missouri given to Romney’s would have given Romney the victory over McCain in the “Show Me” state.

Paul’s candidacy hurt Romney’s campaign in a secondary way. Paul’s strong showing in Alaska, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota on Super Tuesday delayed knowing who had won those state’s Republican contests until the next day. When people turned off the evening news in the Eastern and Central Time Zones, Romney had been given only two states: Massachusetts and Utah, which the pundits dismissed since Romney was the former governor of Massachusetts while Utah was overwhelmingly Mormon. When people turned off their TVs that night McCain and Huckabee were the big winners and Romney was the odd man out. Conceivably with Paul out of the race, the visuals on election night would have looked much better for Romney and made him appear more competitive than Huckabee.

If Romney had won either Iowa, New Hampshire or both, the Republican presidential calendar could have played out differently. McCain not winning New Hampshire possibly could have given both Guliani and Thompson stronger legs to run on. Earlier notices of Romney’s Super Tuesday wins would have also helped.

There are reasons to disagree with this analysis but the mainstream press has not been discussing Paul’s effect on the Republican contests as much as is warranted.

By ED MIHALKANIN, Ph.D

and to think we subsidize his ass.

crazyfingers
05-09-2008, 02:35 PM
Romney cost Paul the nomination...

Realistically though, if you're going to entertain such notions, its fairly evident that Huckabee cost Romney the nomination.

pinkmandy
05-09-2008, 02:37 PM
Another "intellectual" who doesn't get it. Sure, if Paul had dropped out we'd vote for Romney? Hasn't spent much time learning about Paul supporters, has he?

Just think, if Romney had dropped out last summer all the Romney supporters may have supported Paul...how about that? That argument is just as legitimate. Romney certainly doesn't hold any more "rights" to run than Paul, does he? I'm so sick of reading comparisons like this. And McCain won't lose the election because of the crazy Paul supporters splitting the vote. He'll lose because we refuse to vote for a pandering, lying, warmongering RINO fool who doesn't stand up for the Constitution.

JMann
05-09-2008, 03:07 PM
Typical of journalist- not reporters, different breed. A friend of mine once carried off a goal post after a major football victory during a Thursday night nationally televised game. After the win students and young fans stormed the field and tore down the goal post. Unlike other times this happened the students carried the goal post out of the stadium and down the major 'college' road towards campus. They made it about a mile before the police stopped the event.

A local journalist went up to my friend and asked if he would comment on the win and he said yes. The journalist, once the camera was rolling, proceeded to chastise my friend about destroying state property and theft and how he justified his actions. Of course, red eyed, he was caught off guard and rambled through some incoherent answer only to see himself on the late news, early news, next noon news and the following day's 6:00 news. His name and a description on the screen that was something like 'drunk student destroying property' had to make his mom proud.

With the story repeated over and over just about anyone that knew him saw the story or heard about it.

Moral to the story: Never trust a journalist.

FreeTraveler
05-09-2008, 03:39 PM
If the best thing that happened from Ron Paul's candidacy is that Romney got defeated, then hooray for the good doctor. If people think Romney was substantially different from McCain, they're fooling themselves. Romney pretended to be a "conservative" but if you look at his past record, it's not that much different from McCain. He was a liberal governor in conservative clothing, claiming he'd "changed."

JMann
05-09-2008, 03:45 PM
If the best thing that happened from Ron Paul's candidacy is that Romney got defeated, then hooray for the good doctor. If people think Romney was substantially different from McCain, they're fooling themselves. Romney pretended to be a "conservative" but if you look at his past record, it's not that much different from McCain. He was a liberal governor in conservative clothing, claiming he'd "changed."

Not much different than McCain? Romney was as liberal as they come but he managed to keep 'reinventing' himself. I don't Romney has ever held a political position that he believed in. He was liberal, then conservative, then he didn't like being conservative so he ran as a liberal for governor. Then he changed again to being a pro-war conservative.

McCain, as much as I don't like him, as always been consistent in his views. It is the media and voters that may like or dislike him.