Ron Paul, loser again

For months now the growing thousands of Ron Paul supporters across the country have been saying virtually everywhere they could, including the comments section of this blog by the hundreds, that the media, the polls and the prognosticators were all wrong. There was a conspiracy.

Those Paul supporters were actually correct. The media, the polls and the prognosticators were, indeed, all wrong -- about Barack Obama handily beating Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. The media that the Paul camp loves to hate was actually dead-on right about Ron Paul. He was a long shot. He misfired again. And he got pretty much the same share of New Hampshire GOP votes as the progressive polls, that Paulunteers also despise as frauds and fixed, unrepresentative statistical snapshots, had indicated he had all along.

As he did in Iowa, Paul, despite raising the most money of any Republican presidential ....

candidate in the fourth quarter -- nearly $20 million -- (and another $600,000 this month) and despite the vociferous support of many young supporters, once again finished in the back of the GOP pack. He was in single digits this time, versus his 10% in the Iowa contest last week when he thumped former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who got a meager 4%. And the zero delegates that Paul got in last Saturday's Wyoming county caucuses.

The 72-year-old, 10-term congressman from Texas with the libertarian ideals and the strict views of the Constitution vied with Giuliani for fourth or fifth place all night with 8% or 9% of the record New Hampshire primary vote. His diverse supporters hoped -- indeed, expected -- that their political passion and heartfelt donations combined with Paul's candor, constitutional clarity and congressional consistency would reach critical mass in New Hampshire and ignite the Ron Paul Revolution. But apparently the match broke.

Despite his enthusiastic supporters. Despite all the hand-painted signs and chants. Despite the long hours handwriting letters to voters in other states. Despite the yard signs that bloomed everywhere like winter dandelions.

Despite his millions of dollars. Despite his growing political infrastructure in other states. Despite his book. Despite the 1,400 meet-up groups nationally. Despite all the positive publicity surrounding his being snubbed by Fox News for the Sunday night debate and his second appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." (Click here for the Paul-Leno interview transcript.) Despite all of his advertising in the Granite State, which seemed fertile soil for his less-government approach.

Paul lost. Again.

Paul has the money to continue his long-shot campaign. He says he plans no third-party run. But we'll see. Running for president and getting the acclaim of friendly crowds is a heady experience. For now, only Fred Thompson did worse in New Hampshire. And the former Tennessee senator wrote off that cold little place long ago.

For now, for a real change, we're not going to try to explain Ron Paul's candidate's defeat. We're going to leave it to his earnest and vocal supporters in the comments section below. Maybe they know better what went wrong. Please, spare us the rants and blaming secret neo-con conspiracies. Don't claim that fourth or fifth place is really winning. Nobody questions if Paul is a straight-shooter who sticks by his guns and his word. We can all go to his website here for the details of his platform.

Here's your chance to explain in specific detail to a major blog and its thousands of readers why Ron Paul lost so badly in New Hampshire and what he needs to do to realistically resurrect his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the other states coming up so rapidly. In fact, everyone is invited to offer their own analysis. Does Ron Paul's political fate even matter in the larger picture?

The floor -- or the page -- is yours. Let's hear it.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Jason]

This was very important to us.

It disgusts me that you have to take the time out of your day to gloat and rub it in our faces. And thats all you're doing and you know it.

[Jimmy]

You know what? America is concerned with the fact that we're at war in Iraq and that we might soon be at war with Iran. America is also concerned about the current state of our economy. Ron Paul is the only candidate saying to pull out of Iraq and to pull out of the middle east and he's the only candidate talking about how much trouble our economy is in right now and instead of writing about that, you choose to write about how he's a loser. Real nice.

[Mark Rushmore]

Paul lost because McCain won. Voters who were looking for a Ron Paul figure found McCain and mistook him for their man.

Barring a miracle in South Carolina, even if he somehow picked up Michigan and Nevada his chances at nomination would remain next to nothing.

With that said, the few paragraphs of your post where you list the blooming lawnsigns and growing infrastructure speak towards what matters here. Not the political fate of Ron Paul the man, but the traction of his message.

[Bill]

Well Andrew, I've been a Paul supporter for about four months now, and was definitely swept up by the Internet and YouTube fever. I read a lot about the guy, and I'm still going to vote for him in my primary. I think he's extremely intelligent, and can get the country going in a smart direction. And I really thought he would do well in New Hampshire — it was disappointing.

Why did he do so poorly? It's hard to say, but my best guess is that it's still mainly name recognition. While it's apparent that the Internet has a ton of people on it, I think supporters misjudged how many of those folks really paid attention to the Paul stories or blogs. I honestly believe that if most Americans could listen to Paul argue points back and forth with each opponent in detail, heads would turn.

But that format is not going to happen. Even the strangest of Paul's views on policy became much less strange when he gets the chance to speak about it more. So, until Paul gets that opportunity, he might reamin near that 10% mark. Annnd, of course I could be way off base, and maybe the country DOES know all about Paul and his way of thinking ... and maybe they just don't agree with it. Not sure.

We'll see how the next month goes. And for the record, you've done a good job of posting Paul content to your blog (you'd be stupid not to, you get great page views) ... but I have to say that your approach above seemed to be a bit unprofessional.

- Bill

[robert]

I like Ron Paul and would vote for him.
But there is a fallacy in internet campaigning. Internet support does not translate to votes as much as eveyone think they should because the internet is not geographically focused. Yeah he raised alot of money, but from where?
The internet is not really geographically limited as is VOTES. If he really wanted to do it right, he should have had internet campaigners focusing on each state...which I think the guy who raised his 4.5 million was trying to do when he moved to NH. Sure there are the meetup groups, but they were doing what matters most in the end anyways--MEETING UP. Basically, with all that technology can do as far as networking, it seems that nothing beats personal contact...that seems to spread faster than any internet mode of operandi.

[MIchael Koob]

Ron Paul is losing because the interests that he is fighting against are firmly in the majority. He is correct to call out in straight fashion all of the ways we are engaged in self-defeating / self-destructive policy at all levels. However, since most voters are not generally interested in hard work and certainly not personal responsibility, that Paul would likely loose was always a given to me. I love Dr. Paul and what he represents. Unfortunately an under-educated electorate doesn't have the attention span to think about the issues he addresses so the likelihood he would NOT hit the mark with the necessary critical-mass of voters was pretty much 100%.

I believe that responsibility frightens most voters so the naturally go out of their way to avoid giving the spotlight to him. He also promises to remove the subsidy that many industries and individuals in this country are currently receiving. If you know that between current Federal benefit program (e.g. SS, Medicare, etc.) recipients and government employees you have almost 50% of the voting population you know all you need to know about how Paul will perform. In addition, since so many wealthy interests are making money off the same system - that is the coup de grace. Why would any of these folks vote or encourage voting for Dr. Paul. It would be against their best interests - of course only on the shortest of terms, but that doesn’t matter to Americans as a general rule.

I don't believe in conspiracy. The major media has a massive investment in the status quo - not just financially but also emotionally. Their actions are completely understandable in that light.

I do believe that people get what they deserve - eventually. America has a large dose of reality coming regardless of whether or not entrenched interests think they can continue to vote themselves a better position than their fellow citizens. They can either embrace a candidate like Paul and get to work proactively or wait until they are forced. Again human nature dictates the procrastination and a lack of majority support for someone like Paul.

I’ve heard it said that America suffers a leadership deficit. We have no deficit of leaders – we have had it so easy for so long we have no ability to recognize the characteristics of a good leader when we see one. We only know how to pick our favorite celebrity or who promises the biggest windfall for us if elected.

Sad really.

[Rick Toone]

Chanting slogans in the streets will only scare the sheep.

In the United States, the masses — the average, comfortable, complacent, consumers — don't want to see fervent displays of passion. It makes them uncomfortable. The masses are complacent precisely because they are comfortable.

Freedom, and freedom of speech, is a raucous, Darwinian process. Disagreement and passion are necessary. In this country though, we have not flexed those muscles in public for more than a century. We have become used to having opinions broadcast to us...and then we glance to our neighbor to see how she reacts.

To my fellow Ron Paul supporters, the point I wish to make is: because corporate mainstream media cannot logically refute Dr. Paul's intelligent positions, they will attack and amplify (our) supporter behavior.

In the New York Times newsroom I can overhear the conversation: "Tell the people if Ron Paul is elected, mass chaos will ensue. Just look at his 'crazy' supporters. We need more government to suppress this uprising."

Time to change tactics.

It is very difficult to convey a complex, nuanced, logical argument in a soundbite. Dr. Paul struggles with this, as do we all. Most people hate to think. Consumers, remember?

Let's work in images.

Two television commercials are needed. Each no more than 15-30 seconds.

CORPORATE CYBORG — Begin with footage of Obama's Iowa victory speech. As he speaks in measured. dulcet. senatoral. tones. his face begins to flicker, revealing the corporate cyborg behind the skin. The flickering cyborg assumes the appearance of all other candidates, and finally locks up: half human, half machine. Cut to Dr. Paul: "Individual human freedom is a right we must exercise. This includes freedom from media censorship and corporate special interest." Cut to a series of candid testimonials from real human beings, beginning with a soldier in uniform: "I support Ron Paul for president." Etc.

GEORGE WASHINGTON — Do you remember the television commercial from the 70's when the American Indian surveys the polluted landscape, and a single tear rolls down his cheek? Powerful. Imagine George Washington in his presidential office, circa 1790. He steps to the door and opens it to discover a panoramic shot of contemporary, bureaucratic, white-marbled Washington, D.C. Cut to closeup of his face as a single tear rolls down his cheek. Narrator: "Our great experiment in human freedom, the United States of America, was founded on principles of individual human liberty. Where is the spirit of independent self-reliance which made this nation great? Ron Paul for president."

I was playing with Photoshop and created the image below. Feel free to spread it around: http://toone.typepad.com/tooneguitars/2008/01/simplify-not-du.html

[JJ]

You ask and you shall receive. Ron Paul won. He won 5th but he won.

You'll call that spin. I say it's just right. That's how fair and balanced I am.

Here's how he won:

He showed he has real, non-Internet, support.

Not alot of it admittedly, not as much as he should have and frankly we expected him to have. I admit disappointment at his low placement. We did devote considerable effort to outreach in the state.

But we also have had a relative quiet of media coverage. Our ads were much fewer, voters had less time to become familiar with Dr.Paul's message, and of course, we singly had the likes of Fox News (who some use for their only source of information) slandering Dr.Paul and making disgusting disrespectful commentary on him the norm of their coverage.

No other candidate suffers the slurs they sling at Dr.Paul. A memo had to go out that he is a whipping boy for speaking the truth on this debacle in Iraq at Fox, and they all line up to cast him with unfavorable coverage again and again.

That has been very unhelpful. In too many established GOP circles, he isn't given the time of day. It speaks to more of where they are at than where he is. He's scrupulously honest and he listens and understands what is said, no matter who is speaking. That isn't the liability some would make it out to be -- he also is very loyal to America and I know he would administer our country well, even-handedly, and ensure America prospered in its foreign dealings.

So what happened in New Hampshire, in light of, or in spite of the above?

I believe the majority of voters were hoodwinked by the excesses of the vitriol spilled aimed at Ron Paul. I believe they believe in who he is, but have doubts about him all the same. I believe they disfavor him because their contemporaries speak little in favor of him.

In a word, I believe a lot of group-think is at work, follow the leader, and out front of the pack is a large-screen television broadcasting Fox News to the viewing faithful.

I'm not blaming the media. There is everything in the World more we could have done to have a better showing, but we did what we could given how ad-hoc, gung-ho, and spontaneous this entire movement is. There is great breadth to Dr.Paul's support base, but we haven't discovered its depth yet.

New Hampshire can't be taken as a reflection, because neither Huckabee nor John McCain will be President. The country decisively is against more war or an Amnesty, and McCain: He is New Hampshire's Obama. "The Alternative" "The Change candidate" -- but America will not elect these men because they are not the best suited candidates, or their agenda's are not what America wants.

Ron Paul has what America wants, and what we need. His experience, his plans overwhelmingly fit what the American people's own are. Our only difficulty is showing them that is the case. Everyone is aping Dr.Paul, Huckabee more than any. Americans like the message. Unfortunately, the Ron Paul name has suffered because he for one and only, will bring the change he speaks of. No doubt should exist in anyone's mind of that.

Our challenge is set out before us, but now we have the money to compete with the media on their own turf.

[Roman Brzozowski]

I was really shocked to see how bad he did. Either the majority of people did not get his message of liberty, peace & prosperity. Or perhaps this is not the message they want, I know some people like to hear of the promises that they will get something from the government, forgeting that the government has nothing to give. In any case I will continue to support Dr. Paul and his message as the primaries continue.

Peace

Roman
Plainfield, IL

[J. Hudson]

Has Ron Paul gotten equal coverage during this run ? Is Fox News denying his participation a fair chance ? Is CNN's mystery Black piece of pie chart a fair representation ? Does the Main Stream Media and the Industrial Complex want Ron Paul to win ?

What would it mean ? It would mean the government and it's Empire Building mentality and Industrial Complex machine would come to a slow, if not an end. Is that what big government wants ? Is it what the corporate interests that own the media wants ?

70% of Americans want the war in Iraq to be over, so I wonder how McCain can get the NH primary when he openly states he'll stay there for 100 years if need be.

I don't think the conspiracy exists moreso than I think the general American Public falls into two camps; one is of the coprorate interest and the other is simply ignorant, uneducated, blind voters.

[Jody]

I for one am a Ron Paul suppporter. He finished one percentage point behind Rudy so I still consider this a victory of sorts. The important thing is getting out the message of FREEDOM and Peace.. I believe the time will come when most Americans will agree with the message. Perhaps we as a nation aren't ready yet, but we will be, if not now, I predict in the not so distant future. The people are getting a Constitutional and Economic education, free of cost, thanks to Dr. Paul. What drew me to Ron Paul was the passion of our young people. What is their vision of America? What are they seeing that we so busy with trying to make ends meet, are not? Perhaps that a financial collaspe is enevitable, that their civil liberties are being slowly and methodically taken away, we are stuck in a never ending war? What is the legacy, what is the message, that We The People are sending to these kids (our future) when we ridicule this man's vison, his commitment to the Constitution and our Country? I for one thought America was better then this. Shame on us..

[DruidMystic]

I have my own take on the entire issue. It is the jerk-off voter who says "I really agree with Ron Paul, and I like what he has to say, but he hasnt gotta chance, so Ill bet on someone who does." for everyone of those people, if they would vote for him, then yes, he definately would have a chance. Voting should not be viewed as placing a bet, it should be about wanting a guy in office whose principles you agree with.

[fattcat]

What happened in NH is clear,Americans are not ready for real change.
We are a country of sheep with a pack mentality.
The problem is that the media only reports what they want the sheep to know.
The truth is right in front of us but we choose to turn a blind eye.
The Patriot act,the North American Union,the list go's on and on.
This country is sinking deeper and deeper and theirs nothing anyone can do about it!
We put down the French,What gives us the right!
Freedom fries my ass!!! That country gets out in the streets and protests for our rights as we sit silent and complaisant.
Give us our big screen TV's and our SUV's and TMC and MTV and were happy to tow the line for this dream, this lie of what America has become!
I would tell people to wake the hell up,but they won't...
I would be wasting my breath.
ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD WITHOUT TRUTH OR JUSTICE OR LIBERTY FOR ANYONE.

[Crumbie]

My opinion is that folks in the US are not very serious about politics. I've been listening to the CNN and MSNBC pundits and it is amazing to hear them talk of the candidates tweaking their message. Obama got a stirring response to his "change" speech after Iowa so here comes everybody with their "change" slogans and speech. I listen to interviews with likely voters and they say things like "I like the way he/she feels about the economy" or "I really feel like he/she can make a difference". I listen to the candidates and to me they are all saying the same thing. Hillary sheds a tear and all the women rush back to her side. The whole thing is very abstract and pointless.

I got interested in Ron Paul because I thought here is somebody who really understands the flaws with this government. I got involved in politics for the first time because I felt like there was a point. What is depressing is that apparently only 10% of Americans can follow Ron Pauls train of thought. The rest just think he is a "wacko" and roll their eyes. Things are not bad enough yet I guess. The problem is when things get too bad...it will be too late. Americans are by and large not moved by the notion that one day our government driven inflation will outpace the economic growth and the trillions of dollars in personal, business, and federal debt that have propped us up for so long will be our collapse. They are not moved by loss of civil liberties. They are not moved by war and the death, waste, and destruction it brings. But if you have a snappy slogan and a charming personality, well that is something to cheer about!

Yes, Folks are just not serious about politics. Sure they are breaking records with turnout, but it is just more reality TV...like breaking attendance records at a football game...sad. The rich democrats just want to feel good about themselves that they elect somebody who is going to take care of those that can't/won't take care of themselves and the rich Republicans just want to feel good about themselves that they elect somebody who will maintain the empire. The 10% left represent a fraction of what this country used to be, fearless independent-minded people that believed in personal responsibility and liberty. I'll continue to support Ron Paul through Feb 5th - and leave some room for hope...

[Ben Yogman]

Awfully petty entitling an article: "Ron Paul, loser again"? He wasn't favored to win New Hampshire going in, and that wasn’t even the talk within his campaign. Sure, the 8-9%, whatever the final figure was a disappointment, but a couple percentage points would have been sufficient to bring him to third rather than fifth, and he was very close to beating Giuliani again. The only reason to frame the matter this way is to gloat.

"Does Ron Paul's political fate even matter in the larger picture?"

Yes, he's largely libertarian and constructionist while the Republican party, led by the evangelicals and neo-cons has become enamored with self-righteousness, government largess, war, and far reaching and open ended powers for government over its citizenry. Yes, because of "Paul's candor, constitutional clarity and congressional consistency". Yes, because he’s the only candidate who represents a real change.

By gloating, you’re trying to reassure yourself and others that none of this Ron Paul stuff will amount to a hill of beans. You do this precisely because he does matter. If he didn’t you could simply ignore him, which is impossible to do given the strength of the grassroots movement behind him.

Let’s look at the surrounding quote:
“His diverse supporters hoped -- indeed, expected -- that their political passion and heartfelt donations combined with Paul's candor, constitutional clarity and congressional consistency would reach critical mass in New Hampshire and ignite the Ron Paul Revolution. But apparently the match broke.”

Where are the broken match pieces? Who among the Paulites has now given up? Who among those who made their heartfelt donations feels they have been wasted? You can’t read minds, and I can’t either… but at this point there is ZERO evidence the movement is crumbling. You say it is because you hope that it is.

"The floor -- or the page -- is yours. Let's hear it."

This is my second attempt at posting.
If this fails as well, given the tone of your article, it's reasonable for us to assume bad faith, and I will find somewhere else to post.

[AndyC]

So the guy that opposes corporate-welfare and a pointless war can't get any votes in the GOP primaries. Go figure!

[Ryan]

I find it interesting that your article isn’t titled Rudi Giuliani or Fred Thompson looses again. They aren’t winning either but you don’t hear anyone going around calling them “losers”. Calling Ron Paul a “loser” is pretty juvenile.

Ron Paul has inspired and motivated people in a way that we have never seen before.
Senior citizens who have never voted before, the military, along with his ever increasing numbers are inspired by his message. Even I have even changed party’s so that I can vote for him in the primary.

Americans are saying they want change, but it seems they are either to afraid to vote for someone who really could bring about that change, or perhaps they just haven’t heard Ron Paul message of freedom, but that’s to be expected. There is no conspiracy against Ron Paul, but there is a clear bias in the media against him.

When someone threatens the statuesque, there is natural bias against them whether its motivated by fear or profit, its not a conspiracy, its just business. A lot of big companies would stand to loose a lot of money if Ron Paul was elected, and they are afraid, so they pay people like you to write venomous articles such as this.

I like many others are seeing right thought it, and together we will change the way America is run.

[Michael Grace]

I think the enthusiastic energy of Ron Paul supporters is largely responsible for the huge turnouts we are seeing lately. His supporters are helping to re-engage voters into the process. This actually makes his job somewhat harder as a big hurdle to winning is overcoming the damage done to him by the mainstream media. For example, you refer to his campaign as his "long-shot campaign" just like the rest of the media. This not so subtle dig is one small way to marginalize him used along with hundreds of other ways of manipulating the truth so he looses credibility. He has been characterized as a bit of a nut with no chance of winning from the very beginning and that has never changed.
Thompson and Rudy are given the benefit of the doubt. Their campaigns are "real and viable" even though they have had no more initial success than the long-shot one of Dr. Paul. Do you believe this doesn't send a loud and clear message? The MSM may not be part of a conspiracy, but they have acted together in marginalizing Ron Paul's image at every turn. Are they aware they are doing it? Is it an editorial policy? Certainly in the case of Fox News (Faux Snooze) it is deliberate. How is the fair reporting of news affected by the fact that reporters now answer to giant corporations with agendas that are threatened by certain people (Ron Paul?). What is the effect on voters when they see poll numbers that tell them a candidate can't win? Can dishonest polls look accurate if they change voter opinion? Have the polls been accurate? If Ron Paul is currently polling at 10% but an article reports an earlier poll that has him at 3% is that honest? The whole polling issue is too complicated to discuss in this small amount of space. But it's safe to say that polling numbers, like statistics, can easily be abused.
When ABC has a graphic that shows the faces of all the candidates except Paul which has been replaced by an elephant it says to all that see it that he is a joke. When he's running at 9% along with Rudy but only Rudy's name appears it says he's not viable. I could go on with these kinds of examples for pages. So when reporters pretend that it is Paul's followers that see abuse that doesn't exist I wonder just how well they do their job. That the MSM doesn't recognize its slant against Paul is sad. That they expect us to continue to trust them and not find new places to mine for news that is truthful is pathetic.
What Paul's followers really represent is a movement toward freedom and responsibility. It may take a lot longer than just a few months to come to fruition as it is asking people to make fundamental changes.
To expect to get the votes we think we should when the deck (MSM) is somewhat stacked against us is wishful thinking. But the American voter has and can make huge strides very quickly sometimes.
I, myself, think it is unforgivable that Fox held their "forum" without Dr. Paul and the fact that the other candidates went along with it is shameful. I wish the rest of the media had been outraged by Fox's lies and transparent attempts to discredit Dr. Paul. I also find it disturbing that no one in the media has bothered to research and report on the claims of unfair reporting about Ron Paul. The facts are obvious and the media once again insults us by presenting biased and unfair reporting and expecting us to believe again and again.
The story about the number of votes Dr. Paul is not getting is the story of the MSM's influence and their attempt to sway this election. Make no mistake - that is the story - that is the reason - and that will be part of what helps to spark even more people to search for a more truthful way to run our country. The revolution is coming. I hope it comes now, but if it doesn't the foundation has been laid and we will continue to build on the messages that Dr. Paul is helping us get out.

[Robert V. MacCargar]

Loser????.......Ron Paul has been and is fighting an uphill battle to just be treated with respect by the "mass media"..........Fox and other networks feed the American public with biased and leading news every second of the day. Don't believe me (just another conspiracy?)....Fox denied Ron Paul participation in a debate the day before polls opened. Fox does another story at the same time, bringing 30 "undecided" voters together to watch the debate and then proceeded to ask them questions about the debate. Fox then goes on to say how important it is to do well in these last minute debates and how participating in these debates sways "undecided" voters........So Fox is admitting that the media can and does control how the American Voters are influenced......Conspiracy or FACT!

Win or Lose........the American People are ready for the Revolution!!!

[Phil Hodges]

I think the best thing that Paul could do to resurrect his candidacy is to become a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, or at least give a speech at the CFR talking all about how he wants to "make the world safe for democracy" (It worked for Huckabee). That way, the CFR could get the MSM to give him more coverage and increase his poll numbers. Of course, the CFR would never have him, and even if he gave a speech about globalism, they would know he was lying just to get popular, so I guess that wouldn't work.

I just wish that instead of the MSM's choosing who the "front runners" are, the people would just choose for the best candidate, not for whom the media decides are the "front runners". If everybody voted on principle, Ron Paul would be leading in the polls and winning these primaries. Stupid American people have a great fear of doing their own research into every presidential candidate, and they would rather just depend on the MSM. Instead, people are voting on whoever is "electable", whatever that means. Dr. Paul is just as "electable" as any other candidate; people just need to know about him (minor detail, I know). And how come he is given so little time, if any, in the media compared to the other candidates? Because he does poorly in the polls, and he's not a front runner. And why is he not doing well in the polls? Because he isn't given very much time in the media. And why is that? Because he doesn't do well in the polls, etc...a vicious cycle of media-induced politics.

Dr. Paul is indeed up against a lot: the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, the GOP, the Federal Reserve System, the mainstream media, the CFR, international bankers, globalists, Washington D.C., et al....Unfortunately, those entities have a lot more say in who is elected than the people do. They all have enough clout to choose the front runners (who all serve the interests of the establishments listed above) for us, and as long as we choose one of their front runners, they don't care. If you support and vote for anyone else though (like Ron Paul, who doesn't serve any of the interests of those aforementioned establishments, but solely those of the individual), you're voting for a long shot who doesn't have a chance. And as long as the media keeps pounding that into people's heads, people will believe it, and they'll obey and will be led to vote for a "front runner", much in the same way that sheep are led to the slaughter.

Stalin said it best: "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

An avid Ron Paul supporter,

Phil

[USAF Vet Dan]

"The media that the Paul camp loves to hate was actually dead-on right about Ron Paul."

Considering that the media has taken huge strides to marginalize Ron Paul as a viable candidate, no wonder he isn't getting the votes he would without such nefarious actions. Let me give you an example.

When Ron Paul won one of the text polls after one of the earlier debates, Fox News added a "group of 'undecided' voters to comment after the debate. Ron Paul won the text poll of that debate. Immediately thereafter, the "undecided voters" were asked, "who thought Ron Paul won this debate". Nobody raised their hands.

Undecided voters? They were paid actors!!! Look at this 50 second video for proof! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RMcsJyUT9o

Now, Mr. Malcolm. Your assertion that the "media was right about Paul" is not all together incorrect. The media was right because they made it so. THIS WAS A CRIMINAL ACT!!!

[Michael R. Conder]

Ron Paul likes to say "Freedom Is Popular." Well, it turns out the kind of socialism this news organization promotes is very popular...for now. Ron Paul has accomplished more than running for President, he has spawn a movement that will only grow in intensity. Someday freedom will be popular again. When that day comes you supporters (L.A. Times Staff included) of socialist and fascist ideologies will be kicked to the curb. Enjoy it while you have power. We are coming for you.

[Anon in upstate NY]

Yes, as Ron Paul enthusiast, I have to admit being very disappointed this morning. I guess the point of your blog is to gloat and kick 'us' when we're down? Why aren't you asking why the 'hero of 9-11' (Rudy) 'lost again'? (and I'm from NY!). The very question you ask reveals your prejudice. You can't pretend for one minute that Paul had a level playing field. He was left out of the Fox Republican debate the night before the election (even the NH Republican Committee withdrew support for the debate becuase of that), before his supporters raised the $20 million this past quarter, the 'talking heads' on TV did their best to avoid mentioning him at all... take for example these recent pie charts from CNN with a 'mysterious' 10% of the pie not labeled (even though Richardson's measely 2% has his name on it.... that's Ron Paul's name missing on that chart: http://mattstooks.com/?p=1219 ).
So Mr. Malcom, you can go ahead and kick us Ron Paul supporters when we are down, that makes you a big man I guess... such a not so graceful victory over Ron Paul on a clearly slanted playing field. Despite the NH results, we Ron Paul supporters shall perservere, because its not only about Ron Paul winning the election, it's about letting America hear the truth: we are not safer in the USA since 9-11, we've only lost our civil liberties. Sibel Edmonds still has the most important story to tell, yet you press people won't print it (she has knowledge of pre 9-11 complicity with various governments). America murdered a half million innocent Iraqi men, women, children and babies. The Canadian dollar is now worth more than the US dollar for the first time in 50+ years and petrol dollars are now all becoming Euros instead of US dollars. Even the Taj Mahal in India will no longer take US dollars, they are so worthless! Gloat all you like about Ron not winning in NH, but the deck has been stacked against him for a long time and he's still doing remarkably well considering that, more important.... some of the American Sheeple have woken up, a groundswell of thinking and concerned Americans is moving across the county, it's a movement and it will not stop with Ron Paul, he only 'fired the first shot heard round the country'. Ron Paul is an honest man, a brave man and I'm sure all of his supporters are proud and thankful for his effort, your kicking him when he's down not withstanding.

[fazsha]

It hurt. No excuses, the NH showing just plain hurt like hell.

[Marc Clair]

The real question I have is why aren't you writing a blog about how poorly 'America's Mayor' Mr. Guliani has done, with years and years of free advertising from the media. He was trounced by Paul in Iowa, and and barely edged him out in New Hampshire. And yet I see no stories about this. The fact is Paul is one of the few who have the cash to compete late in this race, and he WILL stay in it, and yet most people have still not heard of him. If someone who the media practically (and literally, in the case of Fox News) ignores can do this well in comparison to someone with years of media exposure, well I'd say the battle has just begun.

No, I'm not trying to spin a 5th place finish as a win. 3 tiny states do not an election make. Stay tuned.