Has the Blackout already begun for Rand ?

[J_White]

I just saw this video posted in another thread where they are discussing the future of GOP - Rubio vs Rand.
and it is actually scary to see that the same narrative is being built for Rand, which was used for Ron Paul. :mad:

He is using the same terms that they used for Ron Paul - Rubio is establishment and a "credible" Prez candidate, while Rand is fringe !! Really ?
Rubio is "electable" - yea, just like Romney was !! :rolleyes:
Rubio is Republican conservative, while Rand is Libertarian - trying to drive a wedge.
Rand has done quite a good job of balancing Libertarian views and Republican politics, but he needs to be on his heels and be ready for these tactics,
else it will be 2007 and 2011 all over again ! :toady:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C-fNHqKbO3E'

Original thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?407653-Very-accurate-analysis-from-NYT-Paul-vs-Rubio-YouTube

[itshappening]

No, they won't black out Rand. He's an elected Senator and will be polling near the top.

Who cares what the talking heads say as long as they say "Rand Paul" and repeat it dozens of times.

[dskalkowski]

Who has been saying that Rand is unelectable anywhere in the past week? I have not heard one talking-head in the past week say anything besides adding to his credibility to be a viable candidate in 2016. Let's not be melodramatic here..

[rubioneocon]

I

He is using the same terms that they used for Ron Paul - Rubio is establishment and a "credible" Prez candidate, while Rand is fringe !! Really ?
Rubio is "electable" - . . .
Rubio is Republican conservative, while Rand is Libertarian - trying to drive a wedge.



Even Hannity the following day with Rudy Giuliani



Who cares what the talking heads say as long as they say "Rand Paul" and repeat it dozens of times.

Well it's not good if they are calling Rand wacky and the paranoia wing of the GOP . . .
as Chris Matthews did . . .

but just watching Rubio at the filibuster, he does sound like a kid . . .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMBTYhToLRA

Rubio at filibuster starts at 7:45 mark of the hour 5 youtube - maybe talks 9 minutes of silliness imho


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32RdgflI0YM

[twomp]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPf-4djmiCM

Got this tube from another thread. Check out the video and watch how Fox News leaves in Rubio's cheers from the audience but edits out Rand Paul's cheers. Fox News and their brain washing has begun....

[Article V]

Who has been saying that Rand is unelectable anywhere in the past week? I have not heard one talking-head in the past week say anything besides adding to his credibility to be a viable candidate in 2016. Let's not be melodramatic here..Eh, today on Fox News' THE FIVE, the co-hosts were kind of dismissive of Rand as the GOP torchbearer and even laughed at his 2016 chances. When Democratic strategist Bob Beckel said he is most scared of Rand Paul, his colleague Dana Perino balked, "Nice try. I know your body language a little too well." To which, Bob Beckel smiled and said, "I think Rand Paul for America is a good idea." Now, I've no idea if Beckel was being serious or not; but the fact that his conservative co-hosts thought he was joking and chuckled at the idea of a Rand 2016 suggests that they're more than happy to brush Rand to the side.

(Side note: I personally am really tired of Greg Gutfeld proclaiming to be a libertarian when he has the most hawkish foreign policy around. TV's Andy Levy, the ombudsman of Greg Gutfeld's RED EYE, has told Greg that he needs to stop calling himself a libertarian; but I don't think Greg understands what Andy Levy means. Greg Gutfeld is not a libertarian. He is a socially tolerant, fiscal conservative who is happy to beat the drum of war if it means collecting scalps; I don't know how to describe that political position: neo-libertarian?

Mediaite did a story on the segment and posted the full video if you want to watch it http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-the-five-takes-on-day-1-of-cpac-and-say-which-gopers-have-them-most-excited-and-scared/. Ultimately, the segment begins and ends and even has a middle where Rand Paul is mentioned, so it's probably not the worst thing for Rand despite the hosts' attempts to be dismissive or mocking. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you... If we've got those two down in 2013, then by my count we should definitely get to #3 ("then you win") by 2016!

[T.hill]

Even Hannity the following day with Rudy Giuliani



Well it's not good if they are calling Rand wacky and the paranoia wing of the GOP . . .
as Chris Matthews did . . .

but just watching Rubio at the filibuster, he does sound like a kid . . .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMBTYhToLRA

Rubio at filibuster starts at 7:45 mark of the hour 5 youtube - maybe talks 9 minutes of silliness imho


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32RdgflI0YM

What did Hannity say about Rand? I haven't heard anything from Hannity about Rand except praise, just tonight he was saying Rand is part of the "New GOP" that he's excited about.

[Tod]

Is it just me, or does Rubio come across as a young kid, still wet behind the ears.


edit: no, I see others have the same impression. :D

[Article V]

Is it just me, or does Rubio come across as a young kid, still wet behind the ears.


edit: no, I see others have the same impression. :DOh, I've no doubt that if Rubio runs he'll be a formidable force just until he has his Rick Perry "oops" moment. No need to attack Rubio; he'll off him a la Icarus. In fact, I hereby dub him "Kid Icarus."

[T.hill]

Eh, today on Fox News' THE FIVE, the co-hosts were kind of dismissive of Rand as the GOP torchbearer and even laughed at his 2016 chances. When Democratic strategist Bob Beckel said he is most scared of Rand Paul, his colleague Dana Perino balked, "Nice try. I know your body language a little too well." To which, Bob Beckel smiled and said, "I think Rand Paul for America is a good idea." Now, I've no idea if Beckel was being serious or not; but the fact that his conservative co-hosts thought he was joking and chuckled at the idea of a Rand 2016 suggests that they're more than happy to brush Rand to the side.

(Side note: I personally am really tired of Greg Gutfeld proclaiming to be a libertarian when he has the most hawkish foreign policy around. TV's Andy Levy, the ombudsman of Greg Gutfeld's RED EYE, has told Greg that he needs to stop calling himself a libertarian; but I don't think Greg understands what Andy Levy means. Greg Gutfeld is not a libertarian. He is a socially tolerant, fiscal conservative who is happy to beat the drum of war if it means collecting scalps; I don't know how to describe that political position: neo-libertarian?

Mediaite did a story on the segment and posted the full video if you want to watch it http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-the-five-takes-on-day-1-of-cpac-and-say-which-gopers-have-them-most-excited-and-scared/. Ultimately, the segment begins and ends and even has a middle where Rand Paul is mentioned, so it's probably not the worst thing for Rand despite the hosts' attempts to be dismissive or mocking. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you... If we've got those two down in 2013, then by my count we should definitely get to #3 ("then you win") by 2016!

I just watched it and they weren't as blatantly cynical and mocking about Rand as your saying and your right I can't tell if he was being serious at the end, but it sounded like it and no one laughed after he said it.

[RP Supporter]

There is indeed a movement to dismiss Rand and boost Rubio. Check out this guy, who used to write for the Hill.

http://ww w.prez16.com/2013/03/grading-cpac-day-1.html

He gives Rand a B- Rubio an A. The guy in the past has openly said that Rand won't win the nomination because he's a white guy from Kentucky. This is how they'll try to marginalize Rand. He'll be seen as too extreme, someone who "can't broaden the base". Rubio will be hailed as visionary, Mr. Conservative himself. It falls on us to ensure that everyone understands just how nonconservative Rubio is. Personally, I'm hoping he passes and Bush runs.

[Article V]

I just watched it and they weren't as blatantly cynical and mocking about Rand as your saying and your right I can't tell if he was being serious at the end, but it sounded like it and no one laughed after he said it.Rand gets a lead-in clip at the start of the segment, but isn't talked about until Bob Beckel says Rand will win the straw poll. To which Dana Perino suggests that no one who wins the straw poll has ever gone on to win the nomination (which isn't true, but no one corrects Dana; instead, it's left as a false-truth to take away preemptively the importance of a Rand CPAC victory). Then at the end of the segment when they do a roundtable of who could be the 2016 GOP nominee, none of the conservatives mention Rand. Only the democratic strategist Bob Beckel does, which makes Greg Gutfeld laugh when Dana Perino calls Bob Beckel out on the idea of promoting Rand. I don't believe I'm mis-characterizing any of this. But I would urge others to view the video and judge for themselves; knowledge is power.

[T.hill]

Oh, well that's a little discouraging.

[J_White]

the thing is we should not be carried away either way - nor get too depressed if they have started marginalizing him, nor become too happy if someone shows some support. there are a lot of people who will be swayed by these hacks when the time comes.
we need to do a lot of ground work, to let him have a chance.
GOP establishment and their cheerleaders in the media are not going to play fair, there is a lot at stake.
be ready.

[jkob]

they do try to black him out a bit, harder to do to a US Senator tho

watched lil bit of The Five today too and pretty much pulled my hair out

gushed about Marco Rubio and Allen fricken West of all people

[itshappening]

they do try to black him out a bit, harder to do to a US Senator tho

watched lil bit of The Five today too and pretty much pulled my hair out

gushed about Marco Rubio and Allen fricken West of all people

Yeah but like I said it don't matter. some of them will praise him, some of them will not like him and won't.

When the campaign starts every network will assign a reporter to Rand's campaign and he will be part of the news narrative. We don't need to worry so much what a talking head is saying as long as they're saying "RAND PAUL", they could be calling him satan it doesn't matter. All that matter is that when the Iowa voter tunes in they hear Rand's name. When it goes to ad break they will see his ad and then they will see Rand in the newspaper and coming to their town. They will make their own mind up. They don't need Eric Bolling or Bill Kristol to tell them what to think.

[Christian Liberty]

(Side note: I personally am really tired of Greg Gutfeld proclaiming to be a libertarian when he has the most hawkish foreign policy around. TV's Andy Levy, the ombudsman of Greg Gutfeld's RED EYE, has told Greg that he needs to stop calling himself a libertarian; but I don't think Greg understands what Andy Levy means. Greg Gutfeld is not a libertarian. He is a socially tolerant, fiscal conservative who is happy to beat the drum of war if it means collecting scalps; I don't know how to describe that political position: neo-libertarian?



Neocon with a few socially liberal views.

[acptulsa]

Yeah but like I said it don't matter. some of them will praise him, some of them will not like him and won't.

When the campaign starts every network will assign a reporter to Rand's campaign and he will be part of the news narrative. We don't need to worry so much what a talking head is saying as long as they're saying "RAND PAUL", they could be calling him satan it doesn't matter. All that matter is that when the Iowa voter tunes in they hear Rand's name. When it goes to ad break they will see his ad and then they will see Rand in the newspaper and coming to their town. They will make their own mind up. They don't need Eric Bolling or Bill Kristol to tell them what to think.

Yeah, well, you say that, but I remember the Westinghouse Channel--a.k.a. CBS--running a segment on the GOP primary last time, and the only person being interviewed who mentioned Ron Paul was an intelligent professional originally from India who said he liked Ron Paul best but was going to vote for Romney because otherwise he was afraid that scary boogeyman Gingrich might get the nomination.

It's no coincidence that they didn't mind talking nice about Rand until he got the attention of disaffected Democrats and independents the same way we helped his dad get the attention of disaffected Democrats and independents. If he can actually win, he has to be portrayed as someone who can't win. They'd have thrown us a bone and let him win the nomination if they were sure he'd lose the general election. Now that the filibuster is done, they can see that he has as good a chance to win the general as his dad did--or better.

We either need to cast reasonable doubt on whether they know who can and can't win, or call them liars and expose this game, or both. Since Republicans are more likely to trust who they should never trust, we may need to do the Blue Republican push to get people participating in the Republican primary. Since there will undoubtedly be more than one Democrat in the race, it could be difficult. But with any luck, either neither Democrat will inspire anyone or one candidate will run away with it, and people will take more interest in Rand's race.

It's either that or a straight-up war on Fox, starting immediately. Not that we don't have the ammunition.


http://i.imgur.com/OskYdl.jpg


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

If Fox wanted the GOP to win as much as their listeners do, they wouldn't do this to the only candidates in recent memory who could get independents to vote for them in the general. We need to brainwash the masses with that repititious message.

[Article V]

Neocon with a few socially liberal views.No, I don't think that works either because, as Bill Kristol explains, neo-conservatives "are more relaxed about budget deficits and tend to reject the Hayekian notion that the growth of government influence on society and public welfare is 'the road to serfdom.' Indeed, to safeguard democracy, government intervention and budget deficits may sometimes be necessary."

Greg Gutfeld doesn't believe that. Far different than a neocon, Gutfeld is much more libertarian when it comes to both economic and social issues; he just has a hawkish foreign policy. I've truly never seen a media personality with his philosophy; it's a different breed or re-invention of something, and therefore it likely needs a new name.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Was Ron Paul really "blacked out" in 2007? Honestly, I've never seen a GOP presidential primary candidate polling in the very low single digits get as much media attention as Paul did in the fourth quarter of 2007.

[acptulsa]

Greg Gutfeld doesn't believe that. He's much more libertarian when it comes to both economic and social issues; he just has a hawkish foreign policy. I've truly never seen a media personality with his philosophy; it's a different breed or re-invention of something, and therefore it likely needs a new name.

He's what the Leftist Media tries--and mostly fails--to paint us as. 'A neocon with a few socially liberal views' is totally redundant--they all have those. This is a warhawk who wants to put the whole cost of the imperialism directly on the working man's back without even deflecting the pain through borrowing. I don't know how believable he is, but this kind of policy is a characture of how the media wants us to be perceived by self-styled, but none too thoughtful 'liberals'.

I think we need another repetition campaign, to remind anyone and everyone that this guy ain't us, and we think peace is vital to prosperity.


Was Ron Paul really "blacked out" in 2007? Honestly, I've never seen a GOP presidential primary candidate polling in the very low single digits get as much media attention as Paul did in the fourth quarter of 2007.

In 2007?? Then why were you making no noise when this board was chock full of complaints about 'He Who Must Not Be Named' and email bombs on media outlets who left him off their polls? Laying low lest we lynch you?

You are kidding, right?

[itshappening]

acptulsa, Ailes likes Rand otherwise he would not be getting on Fox as much as he does. He is polite and prepared to package his views a lot differently to Ron. He is made for cable TV and always gives a good interview and does not argue with or offend hosts.

I think we can expect fair coverage from Fox and that's all we need. We just need Rand woven into the news narrative and the general news reports and he will be more than Ron who they did actively try and black out. They cannot black out a US Senator who is polling at the top. A congressman yes but not a senator.


It really doesn't matter what the analysts like Kristol say or indeed what talk radio says. But the talk radio crowd is not hostile to Rand either and i'm sure they will provide fair coverage and won't be suddenly attacking him after saying nice things and having them on their show for 5 years.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

You are kidding, right?

No. Compare Ron Paul's coverage in December 2007 to, say, Duncan Hunter's.

[acptulsa]

acptulsa, Ailes likes Rand otherwise he would not be getting on Fox as much as he does. He is polite and prepared to package his views a lot differently to Ron. He is made for cable TV and always gives a good interview and does not argue with or offend hosts.

I think we can expect fair coverage from Fox and that's all we need. We just need Rand woven into the news narrative and the general news reports and he will be more than Ron who they did actively try and black out. They cannot black out a US Senator who is polling at the top. A congressman yes but not a senator.


It really doesn't matter what the analysts like Kristol say or indeed what talk radio says. But the talk radio crowd is not hostile to Rand either and i'm sure they will provide fair coverage and won't be suddenly attacking him after saying nice things and having them on their show for 5 years.

Ailes will do as he's told. His customers are always right, and his customers are corporations, including those which make up the Military Industrial Complex. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if Ailes likes anyone personally. Ailes didn't get where he is by refusing to play Official Fairy Tale Teller when it comes to yellowcake uranium or anything else. Wake up, coffee's on.

Ron Paul was, for four years, a respected voice to be invited on for the sake of good ratings and good discussion as far as Fox Business was concerned, but still a political kook. Congressman, Senator, Governor, brilliant, doesn't matter. 'Yes, he has his strengths, but you still don't want him as your candidate.' Over and over and over.

Leopards don't change their spots. Fox changes their spots as often as they have to for cover. Rand is partisan, you liberals don't want to cross over and vote for this one. What? Rand broke out of our partisan narrative? Rand isn't partisan enough, you Republicans don't want to vote for him. What? Rand's supporters found a way to disprove that too? Well, we're Fox, we got the Clear Channel kilowatts 24/7, and we'll keep dreaming up crap to fling at any honest candidate until we find something that sticks, just like we did before, we'll play our next Romney off against our next Gingrich or Santorum, just like we did before, we get paid to do this bullshit so we don't mind.


No. Compare Ron Paul's coverage in December 2007 to, say, Duncan Hunter's.

lulz. We got Ron Paul more attention than Duncan Hunter ever got. Well, then. That is significant. :rolleyes:

[itshappening]

Ailes will do as he's told. His customers are always right, and his customers are corporations, including those which make up the Military Industrial Complex. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if Ailes likes anyone personally. Ailes didn't get where he is by refusing to play Official Fairy Tale Teller when it comes to yellowcake uranium or anything else. Wake up, coffee's on.

Ron Paul was, for four years, a respected voice to be invited on for the sake of good ratings and good discussion as far as Fox Business was concerned, but still a political kook. Congressman, Senator, Governor, brilliant, doesn't matter. 'Yes, he has his strengths, but you still don't want him as your candidate.' Over and over and over.

Leopards don't change their spots. Fox changes their spots as often as they have to for cover. Rand is partisan, you liberals don't want to cross over and vote for this one. What? Rand broke out of our partisan narrative? Rand isn't partisan enough, you Republicans don't want to vote for him. What? Rand's supporters found a way to disprove that too? Well, we're Fox, we got the Clear Channel kilowatts 24/7, and we'll keep dreaming up crap to fling at any honest candidate until we find something that sticks, just like we did before, we'll play our next Romney off against our next Gingrich or Santorum, just like we did before, we get paid to do this bullshit so we don't mind.



lulz. We got Ron Paul more attention than Duncan Hunter ever got. Well, then. That is significant. :rolleyes:

No, you're wrong. Ailes is important. He runs the station and is in firm control. Rupert does not really get involved with day to day or booking guests to shows. Rand appears regularly on nearly every show on FOX so from that you can deduce that he is "approved" and deemed suitable which was more than Ron ever managed prior to 2008 when they did try and black him out. They did not like Ron as he dropped truth bombs and pointed out their hypocrisy. Rand is different in that he is smoother and uses persuasion

[acptulsa]

No, you're wrong. Ailes is important. He runs the station and is in firm control. Rupert does not really get involved with day to day or booking guests to shows. Rand appears regularly on nearly every show on FOX so from that you can deduce that he is "approved" and deemed suitable which was more than Ron ever managed prior to 2008 when they did try and black him out. They did not like Ron as he dropped truth bombs and pointed out their hypocrisy. Rand is different in that he is smoother and uses persuasion

I heard lots of truth bombs during that filibuster. Now, I'm not saying they're going to be obvious and simply drop him like a hot rock. I'm saying that, now that he has dropped truth bombs, and gotten the attention of disaffected Democrats and independents, things are going to change. They aren't going to change like flipping a switch, because that would be too obvious even for Fox and their often oblivious viewers. But things are going to change, and they've almost certainly already started to change.

To underestimate the enemy's propagandists is to lose again. You can trust if you want to. But don't fail to verify.

Rand has a populist agenda. Fox has corporate sponsors. To pretend that isn't a real conflict is just ostrich-like behavior.

[SilentBull]

They briefly covered Rand this morning at my local news channel. They said it was pretty smart of Rand to call the GOP old and moss-covered. However, they said he's becoming the spokesman for the libertarian republicans and said they're not sure the majority of republicans are cool with libertarianism. Overall, it was a positive piece.

[acptulsa]

They briefly covered Rand this morning at my local news channel. They said it was pretty smart of Rand to call the GOP old and moss-covered. However, they said he's becoming the spokesman for the libertarian republicans and said they're not sure the majority of republicans are cool with libertarianism. Overall, it was a positive piece.

Indicates to me they're doing to him what they did to his father now. Before, they were all about giving him the nomination as long as independents didn't trust him not to be a neocon. Give the libertarian the nomination, let him lose, and shut those libertarians up. No Republican will ever listen to them again. What? Now he has as good a chance of winning the general election as his father did? Tell those Republicans he's not one of them, quick!

[jmdrake]

No, they won't black out Rand. He's an elected Senator and will be polling near the top.

Who cares what the talking heads say as long as they say "Rand Paul" and repeat it dozens of times.

Let them try to black him out. I'm sure Obama and the progressive - neocon republicrats will continue to give Rand reasons for more epic filibusters.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

lulz. We got Ron Paul more attention than Duncan Hunter ever got. Well, then. That is significant. :rolleyes:

Ron Paul received significantly more coverage than candidates such as Hunter and Tancredo, despite polling within the margin of error of them.

[acptulsa]

Ron Paul received significantly more coverage than candidates such as Hunter and Tancredo, despite polling within the margin of error of them.

By the last quarter of 2007, we had so completely exposed the media's tendency to choose who the major candidates are by ignoring the rest that the media was forced to acknowledge Ron Paul's existence for the first time. And how did they do so? They said, in effect, 'So, you want us to cover your candidate even though we don't like him? Fine. Libertarian Party Candidate kooky uncle Quixotic fascist followers Snowball Throwers kooky uncle Quixotic. There, how'd ya like that, ya assholes?'

Didn't change the fact that, again in 2012, many headlines didn't even list Ron Paul's finishing position in Iowa. He Who Must Not Be Named did get insulted and slammed from time to time, but in spite of what some here are saying, that isn't the same as coverage. If it were, Hitler would be a shoo-in.

Tell you what. We'll prepare for the same enemy action we've seen twice already (more than that, for those of us who have been watching the Libertarian Party, and libertarian candidates for both major parties, over the decades) and you bury your heads in the sand. And we'll see who's surprised in two years. Just don't expect us to bury our heads too. There aren't that many suckers born every minute.

We will be stroked some more, before we're stabbed. There will be more honey before the poison comes. But the poison will come. We will be Beckstabbed. I guarantee it. The media is full of whores. They might put some stock in their reputations, but those reputations are not more important to them than their jobs.

[satchelmcqueen]

it really is starting. its obvious. now that rand is a major threat, they will start saying he isnt serious about winning.

[Athan]

Greg Gutfeld is not a libertarian. He is a socially tolerant, fiscal conservative who is happy to beat the drum of war if it means collecting scalps; I don't know how to describe that political position: neo-libertarian?

Nope. That is still a neocon. Neocons want global intervention. They can range from being fiscal conservative on domestic issues to some being socially liberal. Those that are NOT socially liberal slant with the religious right. They can be against welfare for fiscal reasons, but the thing that unites neocons are the desire global military intervention and were the architechs and supporters of the Plan for the New American Century (PNAC) which was world miltary dominance by the US. They failed because of our bankrupcy.

[satchelmcqueen]

i saw the edit to. very pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPf-4djmiCM

Got this tube from another thread. Check out the video and watch how Fox News leaves in Rubio's cheers from the audience but edits out Rand Paul's cheers. Fox News and their brain washing has begun....

[Athan]

It doesn't matter what the GOP establishment says, they clearly can't get their choice candidates elected against democrats without us.

[RickyJ]

No, they won't black out Rand. He's an elected Senator and will be polling near the top.

Who cares what the talking heads say as long as they say "Rand Paul" and repeat it dozens of times.

They can black out the president if they want to, they have the power and they know it. Reagan had to go directly to the American people to get his message out because the media wasn't going to deliver it.

[moostraks]

By the last quarter of 2007, we had so completely exposed the media's tendency to choose who the major candidates are by ignoring the rest that the media was forced to acknowledge Ron Paul's existence for the first time. And how did they do so? They said, in effect, 'So, you want us to cover your candidate even though we don't like him? Fine. Libertarian Party Candidate kooky uncle Quixotic fascist followers Snowball Throwers kooky uncle Quixotic. There, how'd ya like that, ya assholes?'

Didn't change the fact that, again in 2012, many headlines didn't even list Ron Paul's finishing position in Iowa. He Who Must Not Be Named did get insulted and slammed from time to time, but in spite of what some here are saying, that isn't the same as coverage. If it were, Hitler would be a shoo-in.

Tell you what. We'll prepare for the same enemy action we've seen twice already (more than that, for those of us who have been watching the Libertarian Party, and libertarian candidates for both major parties, over the decades) and you bury your heads in the sand. And we'll see who's surprised in two years. Just don't expect us to bury our heads too. There aren't that many suckers born every minute.

We will be stroked some more, before we're stabbed. There will be more honey before the poison comes. But the poison will come. We will be Beckstabbed. I guarantee it. The media is full of whores. They might put some stock in their reputations, but those reputations are not more important to them than their jobs.

So true...I listened to a little bit of Rush when he was talking about Rand recently and you could hear the planks being laid for the future argument against Rand. I think you can either listen to them with the ears of an optimist or what you and I probably feel is being a realist and others would say is being pessimistic. The tone was almost threatening in the manner it was laying out the foreign policy position of his father is what makes him a kook and unelectable. Well, yeah, when the m.i.c. makes the calls on who is to get elected then only war hawks are a serious candidate for President. Rand is walking a tight rope and it will be interesting to watch him vs. the media.

[acptulsa]

It doesn't matter what the GOP establishment says, they clearly can't get their choice candidates elected against democrats without us.

The establishment doesn't care. Only the rank and file cares. But the rank and file doesn't understand that the party leadership doesn't care, and Murdoch/Ailes of Fox certainly doesn't care. One establishment party is as good as the other to them. Hell, looks like half of us are having trouble wrapping our brains around this simple fact, regardless of all the evidence. We're going to have hell showing it to the rank and file. But that's what we have to do.

All these little x, y, and z have more integrity than NBC, or 'so and so hates Fox and will go off message to discredit them' plotlines are about as believable as the soap opera crap they foist on us during professional wrestling. They all work for the same sponsors. When will we learn to follow the money?


http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/make-the-lie-big.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/t2yV9Kt.gif

Anyone who thinks any of these corporate-sponsored 'news outlets' are anything but propaganda is either a damned fool or a troll. Or both. But, you know, the Glenn Beck threads are proof enough we have plenty of both hanging around.

Bottom line: Either they're expecting us to throw them a money bomb (even though we can't seem to keep Mox News afloat) or they're going to make their sponsors happy. Think about it. Think hard.

[juleswin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aku3CTNfkvU


Totally ignored here. Yes, its Al fricken Sharpton but this is how it starts

[itshappening]

Who cares about MSNBC? Rand has been on every fox show in the last 2 weeks and on CNN. That's all people watch on cable. They don't watch the propaganda channel.

He's not being blacked out and won't be.

[AuH20]

I predict Beck will push back at the MSM onslaught when the time is right. He has a score to settle with Fox and the ringleaders who run the GOP. Plus, Beck has the most antagonistic relationship with Bill Kristol. They loathe one another.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I predict Beck will push back at the MSM onslaught when the time is right. He has a score to settle with Fox and the ringleaders who run the GOP. Plus, Beck has the most antagonistic relationship with Bill Kristol. They loathe one another.

Don't depend on Beck.

[AuH20]

Don't depend on Beck.

I'm not depending on Beck, but he's a fellow traveler formed by negative experiences with the people who hate our guts. He wants to create a new media phenomenon and trample over the old, where he was once employed. He sees Rand as the ticket to this new vision. From both a political and business perspective, it's an ideal relationship for his company Mercury Arts. (1) he gets to shove up a pile of "I told you so" up Mrs. Murdoch's ass (2) he gets back at all his entrenched GOP enemies, from Bill Kristol to McCain.

[J_White]

Yeah but like I said it don't matter. some of them will praise him, some of them will not like him and won't.

When the campaign starts every network will assign a reporter to Rand's campaign and he will be part of the news narrative. We don't need to worry so much what a talking head is saying as long as they're saying "RAND PAUL", they could be calling him satan it doesn't matter. All that matter is that when the Iowa voter tunes in they hear Rand's name. When it goes to ad break they will see his ad and then they will see Rand in the newspaper and coming to their town. They will make their own mind up. They don't need Eric Bolling or Bill Kristol to tell them what to think.

I like your hopeful outlook, unfortunately I don't agree with that last sentence.
There are MANY who will listen to those kinda talking heads and make up their mind about whom to vote for, without looking to the truth of anything.
That in fact is a major problem.

[itshappening]

I like your hopeful outlook, unfortunately I don't agree with that last sentence.
There are MANY who will listen to those kinda talking heads and make up their mind about whom to vote for, without looking to the truth of anything.
That in fact is a major problem.

You're wrong. The voters in Iowa and NH don't tend to take their cue from Fox on who they're going to vote for. They pay attention to the campaign in their state, what their friends are saying, what the local hosts are saying, the ads, the mailers, the campaigns organizational strength, the appearances by the candidate and local newspapers. Bill Kristol or other talking heads do not override what happens on the ground and what they themselves see of the race in the state. People on here give them far too much influence.

They might watch Fox news in the evening but they're not likely to trash a U.S Senator polling high 24/7 during the campaign, they will have a reporter assigned to his campaign providing updates on his activities and will be reasonably objective. That's all we need.

[J_White]

By the last quarter of 2007, we had so completely exposed the media's tendency to choose who the major candidates are by ignoring the rest that the media was forced to acknowledge Ron Paul's existence for the first time. And how did they do so? They said, in effect, 'So, you want us to cover your candidate even though we don't like him? Fine. Libertarian Party Candidate kooky uncle Quixotic fascist followers Snowball Throwers kooky uncle Quixotic. There, how'd ya like that, ya assholes?'

Didn't change the fact that, again in 2012, many headlines didn't even list Ron Paul's finishing position in Iowa. He Who Must Not Be Named did get insulted and slammed from time to time, but in spite of what some here are saying, that isn't the same as coverage. If it were, Hitler would be a shoo-in.

Tell you what. We'll prepare for the same enemy action we've seen twice already (more than that, for those of us who have been watching the Libertarian Party, and libertarian candidates for both major parties, over the decades) and you bury your heads in the sand. And we'll see who's surprised in two years. Just don't expect us to bury our heads too. There aren't that many suckers born every minute.

We will be stroked some more, before we're stabbed. There will be more honey before the poison comes. But the poison will come. We will be Beckstabbed. I guarantee it. The media is full of whores. They might put some stock in their reputations, but those reputations are not more important to them than their jobs.

that is a warning that needs to be heeded and we need to be prepared for that.
same old tricks will be applied and they will work again, unless we are prepared.
Rand, are you listening ?

[Article V]

Nope. That is still a neocon. Neocons want global intervention. They can range from being fiscal conservative on domestic issues to some being socially liberal. Those that are NOT socially liberal slant with the religious right. They can be against welfare for fiscal reasons, but the thing that unites neocons are the desire global military intervention and were the architechs and supporters of the Plan for the New American Century (PNAC) which was world miltary dominance by the US. They failed because of our bankrupcy.This just isn't true. By this definition a fiscally conservative Democrat is a neoconservative rather than a fiscally conservative liberal.

People on RPF throw around the term "neocon" so fast and so loose that we're going to need to start an education campaign complete with a Sticky to link whenever someone misrepresents neo-conservatism. We treat neo-conservatism like the media treats isolationism; but supporting interventionism does not make one a neocon just as supporting non-interventionism does not make one an isolationist.

[rubioneocon]

What did Hannity say about Rand? I haven't heard anything from Hannity about Rand except praise, just tonight he was saying Rand is part of the "New GOP" that he's excited about.

When Hannity talked to Giuliani the next day, it was the tone of how foolish someone would be to think that you could be sitting in a cafe and be droned . . . which misses the very point of the filibuster . . .
all to dismiss it off as a silly suggestion or illustration -
and all to a great big chuckle and toothy smile from Giuliani to suggest Rand was a fool for the filibuster suggestions.

[J_White]

another hit to marginalize Rand Paul.

National Jewish Democratic Council denounces Rand Paul’s CPAC straw poll victory

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/17/jewish-democrat-group-denounces-rand-pauls-cpac-straw-poll-victory/#ixzz2NqT0W4R7