Post #351,869
12/11/11 12:04:09 PM
|
Pravda had its airbrush...
I'm ordinarily pretty satisfied with the breadth of coverage provided by the New York Times, but today a front page above-the-fold link leads to an account of last night's GOP clown show in which every participant's performance and standing is examined in greater or lesser depth save one, who is not even mentioned. As those of you who have followed my fulminations over the years might guess, I am not a likely or even conceivable Ron Paul supporter, but it seems passing strange that the Paper of Record sees fit to treat him as an unperson even as it spares a few lines of ink for "serious" candidate Michelle Bachmann in this account.
http://thecaucus.blo...final-stretch/?hp
cordially,
|
Post #351,870
12/11/11 12:55:26 PM
|
It has been obvious all along
It has been that way from the very start. The press has decided that Ron Paul is old news and a niche candidate with no real chance of winning.
What far to many in the press forget is that those determinations tend to be self fulfilling prophecies. The press won't cover him because he doesn't have a chance, and he doesn't have a chance (in part) because the press won't cover him.
Jay
|
Post #351,872
12/11/11 1:36:02 PM
|
Yeahbut, it's still early.
You're right that the national press tends to only cover the "serious" candidates. Witness the lack of coverage of Buddy Roemer.
However, political coverage tends to scale with 2 things: 1) poll numbers; 2) fundraising. They think those numbers are objective and always use that as the starting point because it's easier than doing real grunt-work journalism. Huntsman and Santorum are dead in the national coverage because they're low in both.
Paul is in a different category that will probably skew the calculus a bit (especially if he moves up in the polls) as Charlie says - http://www.esquire.c...-december-6614342
Romney's now got more problems than Gingrich in Iowa. As I said (and have), it looks like there might actually be a second act coming for the Girl With The Faraway Eyes, and Ron Paul got more applause than anyone else on Saturday night. Hell, who knows what impact Rick Santorum's actually made out in the hinterlands where he's been spending his time? All bets are off, I'm thinking.
Paul can raise substantial funds from his true-believers at this point. And his economic ideas are meat-and-potatoes to the teabaggers. It's certainly possible that he can do well in Iowa and NH and even SC. (I can't see Santorum winning, but who knows.)
It's very early yet. The coverage can change quickly (witness Newt).
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who still thinks Willard will win the nomination.)
|
Post #351,880
12/11/11 6:08:40 PM
|
Huntsman got a whole Show devoted to him...
Fareed Zakaria - Global Public Square
Wow, IMO Huntsman is not exactly another strong candidate.
|
Post #351,886
12/11/11 10:15:11 PM
|
too early, imo...
I really think that, so far at least, this election has only shown that the Republican Party doesn't like ANY of the candidates.
No one was excited for Newt. He's getting votes now because of name recognition and because they don't like the others.
They haven't like Romney...and still don't. (And there is another strong group that doesn't like Ron Paul either....they refuse to admit his standing in the Iowa straw poll)
Overall...
They tried Bachmann -- that failed.
They tried Perry... -- that failed.
They tried McCain...that failed.
They're going to try Newt. It's going to fail.
This election screams that a dark-horse candidate...an unknown...is going to appear sometime between March and June. (Probably closer to June). They're going to build momentum very quickly...no one is going to know anything about them, and they're going to be the candidate.*
(And that candidate is going to have a very good chance of unseating Obama, imo)
* Anyone else notice that Obama ran nearly the same way?
|
Post #351,887
12/12/11 8:25:41 AM
|
My memory of BHO's campaign is very different.
He announced in February 2007. He was a sitting US senator. He wrote a biography that was published in 1995, then re-issued in 2004. He competed in every primary and caucus AFAIK.
He beat Hillary and Edwards fair-and-square. He didn't parachute in at the last minute.
The Republican clown car of kooky candidates is very different.
I don't think someone will swoop in and save them. Nobody knows the future, though.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #351,890
12/12/11 9:08:33 AM
|
Rose colored glasses.
He beat Hillary and Edwards fair-and-square.
That primary was not without its controversies. Sure, you can dismiss them, but it's a little disingenuous to say they won "fair and square" unless you mean in the sense that Putin's Party recently won a majority.
And please, don't let's compare and contrast Barry's coverage with everyone else's (particularly Hillary's).
|
Post #351,894
12/12/11 10:22:25 AM
|
Yeah. Let's not do that (again).
|
Post #351,889
12/12/11 9:05:19 AM
12/12/11 9:05:30 AM
|
They follow something else even closer.
Agree with what you've said, but the number one thing that will get you coverage is ... scandal. And it's been that way at least since 1975. I worked for Carter's campaign back then and I'm here to tell you that I have first hand knowledge that the "lust in my heart" thing in the Playboy interview was most definitely by design. And it worked like a charm. Before that interview, our shirts said, "Jimmy Who?" Not so after that hit the news stands.
Edited by mmoffitt
Dec. 12, 2011, 09:05:30 AM EST
|
Post #351,892
12/12/11 10:16:26 AM
|
That was after they focus-grouped the slogan
"In his heart, he knows your wife."
|
