Ron Paul: the most talked about "ignored" candidate ever?

[Keystone Phil]

For real, guys. So he gets ignored by some talking heads when they mention polls. The guys is all over the place everywhere else. Now he has to go on The Daily Show and whine about how he's like the 13th floor at a hotel? If he hates being "ignored" this much/is so desperate for attention, no doubt he'll go back on his decision to retire from Congress.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yep. Even if everyone else dropped out, he'd still get ignored. Luckily, he has his loyal fanbase. Also, he probably has the most online ads (other than Obama himself)

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I don't know if he gets ignored, I find him to be mentioned in passing as irrelevant.

So many polls are mentioned on MSNBC, Fox News, etc and I hear things like "even Ron Paul is ahead of (insert Conservative Republican name here)"

He's mentioned but not taken seriously

[Napoleon]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

[izixs]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

I don't much like him. Beyond his issue positions he does come off as kind of whinny and obsessive. Which doesn't really me endear me at all.

[memphis]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

I thought he came across as a clueless old man. Stewart made him look like a fool.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

For real, guys. So he gets ignored by some talking heads when they mention polls. The guys is all over the place everywhere else. Now he has to go on The Daily Show and whine about how he's like the 13th floor at a hotel? If he hates being "ignored" this much/is so desperate for attention, no doubt he'll go back on his decision to retire from Congress.

It's less "ignored" and more "dismissed off hand".

The prime example would be the last Republican debate. Someone said "Ron Paul" and the panelist talking about the candidates said something along the lines of "I don't want to talk about Ron Paul, lets do that later".

If he actually says something, unless it is something they want to attack him on (say, foreign policy), he is ignored. If he polls well, manages to pull off something impressive, makes a good point, etc he is either ignored in a rather blatant manner (again, the last debate where even losers with a fraction of his support like Huntsman had considerably more time/questions), or he is brushed aside or mentioned in passing, like in the context of "BACHMANN WINS AMES, PAWLENY COMES THIRD" or "ROMNEY WINNING IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, HUNTSMAN'S THIRD AT 10% INDICATES INCREDIBLE SUPPORT, PERRY IN FOURTH" where Paul is mentioned for maybe a sentence or two. Its like the American media is attempting to imitate Pravda or something.

[Napoleon]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

I don't much like him. Beyond his issue positions he does come off as kind of whinny and obsessive. Which doesn't really me endear me at all.

He didn't seem that way last night and he also didn't look like a skeleton in a suit.

[Yelnoc]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

I don't much like him. Beyond his issue positions he does come off as kind of whinny and obsessive. Which doesn't really me endear me at all.

He didn't seem that way last night and he also didn't look like a skeleton in a suit.

Yes he does.  Ok, a skeleton with skin attached.

[Napoleon]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

I don't much like him. Beyond his issue positions he does come off as kind of whinny and obsessive. Which doesn't really me endear me at all.

He didn't seem that way last night and he also didn't look like a skeleton in a suit.

Yes he does.  Ok, a skeleton with skin attached.

You don't seem like the type who wat he's Jon Stewart.

[Marokai Backbeat]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

He's very sincere but I'm not sure he comes off as particularly.. grounded, we'll say.

But yes, Phil's right. Paul gets plenty of attention. I don't understand this notion that he's entirely ignored.

[Penelope]

A few months from now:

BREAKING: MICHELLE BACHMANN WINS IOWA CAUCUS

Bachmann - 29.6%
Paul - 35.8%
Perry - 18.16%
Romney - 15.2%
Other - 1.24

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

He came across as very likable on The Daily Show. I don't see how anyone couldn't like him.

Because's he's a racist, reactionary toolbag.

I like Gary Johnson so I can't chalk my dislike of him up to "I hate libertarians".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Paul is ignored by the news media, but people like Stewart pay him attention.

For real, guys. So he gets ignored by some talking heads when they mention polls. The guys is all over the place everywhere else. Now he has to go on The Daily Show and whine about how he's like the 13th floor at a hotel? If he hates being "ignored" this much/is so desperate for attention, no doubt he'll go back on his decision to retire from Congress.

It is kinda whiney, but hey, he doesnt have to ask to get debate questions Phil

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes he does.  Ok, a skeleton with skin attached.

This coming from a distance runner

[defe07]

I think what gets most Ron Paul supporters (including me) frustrated is the fact that the corporate media snubs him when it comes to poll results, but don't mind mentioning him on edgy issues for audience attraction. For example, I wasn't happy when Gary Johnson wasn't included in some of the debates. In 07, they didn't include Gravel, Kucinich or Hunter in many debates.

The thing is I may be a Ron Paul supporter but, whether he won the race or came in dead last, all candidates should be covered. For example Keystone Phil, I'd be sad if Santorum weren't invited to a debate for reason x.

I mean, wouldn't any of you think it goes too far when the reporters mention all the other candidates but not one or two, especially when it comes to poll results? That pushes the envelope per se and is called crappy journalism, a journalist must cover all the candidates (whether you like one or not, not my thing, just do the job properly!) 

[angus]

he has his loyal fanbase.

the preferred term is "supporters" thank you very much.  

[angus]

I can't speak for other Paultards (Paulistas, Paulites, Paulians, Paulsters, etc.) but I don't think he's being ignored by the press.  He is being ignored by most Republicans, even by some of my favorites (e.g., David Brooks of the New York Times).  This is because he has committed some cardinal sins.  First, he isn't a loyal Republican (he ran for office under the label of the Libertarian party in the late 1700s, or something like that).  He is also not a neoconservative (He strongly opposed the Iraq invasion, and probably also opposed the Mexican War and the Civil War in his youth.)  And he refuses to acknowledge the benefit of the federal reserve.  (He probably said in his speeches, as he campaigned for re-election during its creation in 1913, that it was a bad idea.) 

But he isn't being ignored by the press.  He did well in caucus states last time--in Iowa he got 10%, and got over 10% in several states, but they were caucus states and not primary states--and it was widely reported that he did well.  But he was not among the top two.  This year, he is not polling among the top two.  If he does poll among the top two GOP candidates in any poll, I have no doubt that it will be a big story.  And if he actually wins any caucus (or primary) I have no doubt that it will be a big story.

He's a nice enough guy.  I've met him on several occasions and have spoken to him at length.  I am convinced that he understands fiscal and monetary policy well, and he has some sound ideas.  He certainly has my vote for any office, any time he wants to run.  And I understand his frustration in general.  But he is not being ignored by anyone except those who control the GOP.  They have a vested interest in maintaining expansionist imperial projects, both overseas and at home.  That's how they make their money, so it is no surprise that he is ignored by them.  He understands all this.  He simply wants you to understand that, and if you still choose to support the neoconservative wing of the GOP, then that's great.  He just wants you to know what you're getting into from the start.  Truth in advertising, as it were.

And, yes, he's a very old man from another time, and in our youth-oriented, short attention span theater society, and in a time when everyone is an expert, and anyone with a laptop PC and an internet connection is a critic and a publisher, it's a bit hard to take a septegenarian obstetrician seriously.  I think he also understands that. 

But he's certainly not being ignored by the press. 

[Averroës Nix]

he has his loyal fanbase.

the preferred term is "supporters" thank you very much.  

The fixation that Ron Paul's base has with the man and his image are suggestive of what I might exaggeratedly call a cult of personality. For many people, he is the personification of their beliefs, hopes and dreams. The only other mainstream figure in American politics whose supporters can be characterized in the same way is Obama.

I can't really tell if I'm being crazy or provocative. Ron Paul has normal supporters, too, as does Obama, but segments of their respective bases definitely to treat them as more than just candidates or politicians.

[Phony Moderate]

The private media owes nothing to Ron Paul.

[angus]

he has his loyal fanbase.

the preferred term is "supporters" thank you very much.  

The fixation that Ron Paul's base has with the man and his image are suggestive of what I might exaggeratedly call a cult of personality. For many people, he is the personification of their beliefs, hopes and dreams. The only other mainstream figure in American politics whose supporters can be characterized in the same way is Obama.

I can't really tell if I'm being crazy or provocative. Ron Paul has normal supporters, too, as does Obama, but segments of their respective bases definitely to treat them as more than just candidates or politicians.

No, you're probably right on.  Early in the 2007 season, probably by February, I figured out that I had a favorite Republican candidate, Ron Paul, and a favorite Democrat candidate, Barack Obama.  I decided that if either of those two won their respective party's primary, then I'd vote for him in the general election.  Mind you, I didn't think Paul had much of a shot, but I really believed, as I posted here, that Obama did.  Obama won his party's nomination, and he won my vote in November 2008, although I am a registered Republican and voted for Ron Paul in the Iowa caucus in January of 2008.  Interestingly, at some point in late 2007 I took the SelectSmart quiz for candidates, and my results were:   "your ideal candidate:  100%, Ron Paul 66%, Barack Obama 66%" followed by others, with no one else breaking 50%.  The result didn't surprise me.  I didn't really expect to have more than about 2/3 ideological overlap with anyone, and I did expect that Ron Paul and Barack Obama would be my top two, and that they were equally my top two, although clearly their mutual ideological overlap is probably very small (maybe 40% or less.)  And they both did better in caucus states (like Iowa) than in primary states.

Those types of candidates, Paul and Obama, inspire a certain Cult following.  Not unlike Jerry Jones really.  Or Jim Jones.  (one's the Dallas Cowboy owner, and the other is the founder of the People's Temple.  They're probably equally dangerous, but the public only understands the danger of the latter.  And I'm not trying to say that Paul or Obama are as dangerous as either the Jonestown crowd or the Dallas Cowboy fans, but they are equally inspiring.)

And, yes, Paul and Obama (and Jones and Jones) probably have "normal" support as well.  But it's not just any candidate who can make you drink cyanide-spiked Kool-Aid (or cheer and wear the "we're Number One" hand foamies for a team that has gone 2-14 for the season.)

And they're both very smart.  (Actually, all four are very smart.)  

But all of that misses the point.  Ron Paul isn't ignored.  He's just irreverent.  And that's one thing that Republicans don't like.  Well, most don't like it.  I actually thrive on irreverence.  And on sound fiscal and monetary policy.  Too bad David Brooks and Sean Hannity don't, because if influential GOP analysts like they did, then their millions of minions would be able to take him and his message more seriously as well.  We're not necessarily asking you to support a septegenarian for President, but we'd like to win as many delegates as possible in order to influence the convention.  This is your country too, and you'd do well to take its future seriously.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Ok, here's a take on the Paulspiracy:

You must be logged in to read this quote.