Ron Paul in the Crosshairs By W. James Antle, III

[bobbyw24]

Cover Ron Paul, many of his supporters demanded. Well, they are about to get what they want good and hard.

Two reputable scientific polls now show Paul with the lead in Iowa. He is third nationally, moving back toward the double digits. When it comes to measuring public opinion, polls are but a snapshot in time. But even the keepers of the conventional wisdom can no longer ignore the Paul campaign.

Expect outlets ranging from the liberal mainstream media to the more hawkish precincts of the conservative press to become one big reprint of the Ron Paul Survival Report between now and January 3. Already those who most disagree with Paul on foreign policy have been discussing the newsletters, which for a period of the 1990s contained some (reputedly ghost-written) racist content the congressman and his campaign have never explained satisfactorily.

There has already been a flurry of predictions in places as diverse as the New York Times and conservative blogs that Paul's surge spells doom for everything from the Iowa caucuses to the Republican Party itself. Robert Stacy McCain has a good round-up. This is what it sounds like when hawks cry.

If Paul holds on to win Iowa, the Washington Examiner's Tim Carney predicts he will receive the Pat Buchanan treatment. After Buchanan won the 1996 New Hampshire primary, a terrified Republican establishment rallied to crush him in South Carolina and beyond. While Paul began his campaign opposed to the war that led to Americans being unceremoniously kicked out of liberated Iraq, Buchanan had most recently opposed the war that kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

Like Paul, Buchanan almost certainly had too low of a ceiling to prevail once the GOP field narrowed. "But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy," Carney concludes, "a Paul victory in Iowa will be an act of impudence that must be punished."

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/20/ron-paul-in-the-crosshairs

[Sola_Fide]

"ARE YOU READY FOR A WAR!!???!!!"

[Jtorsella]

That's not even the worst article. Look at my post.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?340185-American-Spectator-Attack-Articles

[shrugged0106]

The National Review Online has outdone themselves in their baseless, character assassination attacks. Makes me sick, but fully expected.

Gosh I hope the campaign has a cogent response to all anticipated attacks this time.

[hazek]

I don't want to sound pessimistic or defeatist but I fear I'm not wrong in estimating the power of the MSM propaganda and Ron will not survive all these propaganda attacks. It's why I always say that we should have primarily focused on defeating the MSM propaganda because it nullifies and defeats everything else we do and I still sadly and hopefully wrongly believe that Ron doesn't stand a chance.

Nothing would make me happier than if it turned out I am completely and utterly wrong, I just fear I'm not. What gives me slight hope is when I see the polls show that Ron has the up to 45 years group of voters on lock. So there is hope with more and more people exposed to the internet.

[bobbyw24]

I don't want to sound pessimistic or defeatist but I fear I'm not wrong in estimating the power of the MSM propaganda and Ron will not survive all these propaganda attacks..

Ron Paul’s Ascent Won’t Last, or Help His Cause: Ramesh Ponnuru

Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican and a candidate for the presidential nomination, doesn’t mind long odds, and doesn’t mind standing alone.

In 2004, the House voted 414-1 for a resolution celebrating the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul not only voted no but gave a speech arguing that the act should never have been enacted. Employers who wish to discriminate against blacks, in his view, should be free to do so. A federal government that claims the power to override their decisions, he said, could also impose racial quotas. “Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

Most of Paul’s fellow libertarians are excited that he is doing well in the polls in Iowa, and hope that more Americans will be exposed to their political philosophy. But as Paul’s record on civil rights suggests, more familiarity with his brand of libertarianism won’t necessarily lead to much more support -- for him or for his cause.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/ron-paul-s-ascent-won-t-last-or-help-his-cause-ramesh-ponnuru.html

[gerryb]

I don't want to sound pessimistic or defeatist but I fear I'm not wrong in estimating the power of the MSM propaganda and Ron will not survive all these propaganda attacks. It's why I always say that we should have primarily focused on defeating the MSM propaganda because it nullifies and defeats everything else we do and I still sadly and hopefully wrongly believe that Ron doesn't stand a chance.

How many emaills have you sent to friends and family?
How many facebook posts?
How many phone calls + phone from home.

We ARE countering the MSM

[hazek]

How many emaills have you sent to friends and family?
How many facebook posts?
How many phone calls + phone from home.

We ARE countering the MSM

I write article comments and share important videos but I'm severely limited since I don't live in America and am not American.

[hazek]

We ARE countering the MSM

My argument is that we should primarily focus on countering the MSM propaganda and doing so in ways that don't give the MSM more influence or money. Find other ways to advertise instead of paying the MSM propaganda machine outrageous sums of our money, stop listening entirely to people who spew propaganda, boycott their stations, contact their sponsors and boycott them, ect..

Yes we are trying to counter the MSM but it's not our primary focus. Right now our primary focus is on getting the message out and we're looking for the easiest way no matter the cost instead of looking for the smartest way. At this stage of the game it's too late to dramatically change the strategy anyway but I've been saying this since last time around.. And don't tell me it can't be done without the MSM advertising when we raise over $20million. How many dvd's, brochures and other means of advertising that could have founded? How good our message could be spread with that type of money if people actually put their heads together and really thought about it?


Anyway, I didn't want to be a downer it's just that I have a really good understanding of human nature and the influence of media propaganda and I just know that soon enough I'll sadly be able to tell you - I told you so.

[angelatc]

That's not even the worst article. Look at my post.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?340185-American-Spectator-Attack-Articles

That wasn't even a bad article. He's only pointing out the truth - that the neocons are a nasty, mean-spirited people who will lie and kill to stay in power.

[hazek]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/ron-paul-s-ascent-won-t-last-or-help-his-cause-ramesh-ponnuru.html

Why oh why would you link me to that piece of garbage article that calls him all sorts of names and smears his positions and let me give them another click?! Seriously, fuck off.

[Krugerrand]

closing line:

None of this means the attacks on Paul will necessarily be proportionate to his offenses, to say nothing of fair. Paul's supporters can take heart in one thing: their man has a successor waiting in the wings to lead their movement, one who smooths some of the good doctor's rougher edges. Pat Buchanan didn't have that, but Barry Goldwater did.

[Occam's Banana]

All things considered, the OP article is objective & relatively sober.
There's a pretty major Mencken quote fail in there, though.