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

[Jeffrey]

This is rather a silly article.

Personally, I am a Guliani supporter, but I have to admit the mainstream media treatment of Ron Paul has been shocking and abhorrent.

While I disagree strongly with Paul's stance on the war, I cannot help but acknowledge that his supporters are generally the most knowledgeable and well-researched of any candidate out there.

I was shocked when Paul trounced Guliani in Iowa, because I had been arguing with colleagues of mine about how Guliani wasn't focusing on Iowa, and they pointed out that Ron Paul put even less of an effort in Iowa than Guliani. I find it interesting that the media never discusses that.

I am pleased that Guliani beat Paul in New Hampshire, but it wasn't exactly a stirring victory. Seems to me the story here is not that Paul lost to candidates with 10-20 times the mainstream media exposure, but how he is getting so many votes with a purely grass roots campaign.

Ultimately, I hope Guliani can pull himself together, but either way I am frankly sick of seeing pieces like this about Ron Paul. It is not the media's job to determine who is elected. When are they going to learn that?

[MIke Dickson]

I don't count anybody out. Yes, I was personally disappointed in the finish, but no one made any movement except Mc and Rom. Of course there is clear bias that is too numerous to list, but Ron will have to fight through that. Note. Thank you Fred for taking up space on the Faux forum. 1.5% OM!! As long as Ron speaks it is like a mirror which shows them how ugly they are. Yes, government pandering is ugly. The other cantidates running took an oath to uphold the constitution and defend it. Yet, all they can sell us is that they can manage a nanny state government better than their competitor. The word change rings so hollow, for they have changed nothing and they will change nothing. Ron Paul is the only guy in either party saying "I believe in people not government". One note on Mike Huckabee. As a christian it is very disheartening to think that he would get one christian vote. Huck promotes government as the solution and not people. It is the peoples place, the church, civic organization, the christian family through hospitality and sacrifice to meet needs of people. When the church meets needs God is glorified and the Gospel gets out. When government meets needs, 1 ) they steal and call it charity?, and 2) government is glorified. Who does Huckabee want people praising? So far government is on Huckabee's altar.

[Qaxyf]

I don't live in US and I don't have any prefered candidate (coming from Hollywood Fred Thompson is a real disapointment, Jack Nicholson would have been soo much better) but this somehow made me want to comment :

Andrew, forget Ron Paul, please tell us how do you see the immediate future of US and the world? Which of the candidates make you proud to be an american ? For a change from the rest of the free (and extremely boring corporate) press please give us some high quality journalism and inform us.

How many children died in Iraq in the last years, what is the ratio compared to Sadam's years? Does that really translates into maintaining the comfort of the ordinary US taxpayer as media wants people to believe or just makes the richer 3x times richer in a year (check Forbes for details).

Repeating on and on that you inform people and have no little facts to show for it, when the major elite publications in US report on financial scandals and their gigantic size but they're easily dismissed by you and you never ask yourselves "Why is this happening?", you never try to get to the bottom of it, you just smile and follow your corporate script.

Where is journalism today? Dead! 100% dead. You're all PR and sales.

[Glenn D]

I believe there are several reasons why the voters of New Hampshire did not support Ron Paul:

1) Like most Americans, and Romney/Giuliani most loudly, New Hampshirites have a fundamental misunderstanding or arrogance about America's role on the world stage. Paul speaks over most people's heads when he talks of the repercussions of our actions. Despite what his critics say, Paul is not a 'truther'. He speaks the truth regarding terrorism's motives reported by the CIA/FBI and written by bin Laden himself. It makes me sad and angry that apparently the US will continue its dangerous and un-American actions willfully against reality.

2) Most voters love a good speech (Obama/Huckabee) over substance. I have yet to hear ONE plan from either of these men (and the others). Wait, Huck did say he would give $1 BILLION (Dr Evil voice) to who ever could make a 100mpg car! (Here is yet another issue where Huck is stuck in La La Land. 100mpg cars are available through converting a Prius. 80mpg are available in Europe in the VW Lupo L3 and Audi A2.) When was the last time a major world issue was settled in a debate or speech? No, it takes actual brains and knowledge. Things Americans keep rejecting in favor of "aura".

3) Religion, despite the founders' best efforts, still counts with people who refuse to live in the here and now. GWB was a "good Christian" and look how much "good" he's done. I've yet to see Georgey boy turn the other cheek. Additionally, voters don't seem to think that Huck believing the Earth may be 6,000 yrs old is rediculous. Ron Paul not wearing his religion on his sleeve probably hurts him, but I applaud him for it.

4) He lacks good "handlers". Ron Paul hasn't been sexy enough while delivering his message. Since voters obviously place more emphasis on style than substance this clearly hurts him.

5) Voters want more war. All the Republicans except Paul favor more military spending and a continued hawkish stance towards foreign policy. Clinton is a hawk. Obama would attack inside sovereign Pakistan without permission or a declaration of war. Therefore we would continue foreign entanglements and continue to bleed our wealth on far away soil. Again, this makes me sad and angry.

6) Voters are ignorant. They are unschooled in history and economics. They believe soundbites over cognition. How does Giuliani get away with saying our foreign policy has no impact on terrorism?! Absolute nonsense! But Americans' arrogance/ignorance allows it. How does Huck get away with saying humans are not primates?! Rubbish! These men are running for PRESIDENT, not student council. It's sad and it's dangerous.

7) Voters want a safety net (AKA "nanny government"). There was a time when one had to do for oneself, but that no longer seems politically viable. Everything from welfare to medicaid to the military allows those who can't get by on their own merits to suck from the government teat (BTW I am a veteran and I know there are good service members, but there's more low hanging fruit than not.)

8) In the words of Rudolph, "9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11."

I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are the ones that come quickly to mind. I still think a Dem will get the big win and we'll continue to have our money taken from us and get not much for it. I would say Americans will get what they deserve, but I happen to live here also and I'm tired of suffering for others' mental/physical laziness. Maybe I'll move to Canada. At least I won't have to lie when I travel!

Peace,
Glenn from VA

[donven]

I understand your position and agree I expected him to at least come in 3rd. The only thing I can say about this is that only 1/2 a percent of 1% of registered American voters voted as of yesterday. The MSM always takes in how Rudy will win. However ever though he apparently shows to be at (20%) Nation wide according to
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/02/543502.aspx
he can't even pass Ron Paul in Iowa and barely beat him yesterday.

So maybe if the MSM would help Dr. Paul out just a bit he could obtain more votes. Money can only get your name out so much. I watch alot of MSM and everytime they talk about REP. or show charts RON paul is NEVER on there however Rudy is.

I think so nice Media attention would help cure this issue.

OOO and maybe everytime the MSM gets a chance to smear his name they shouldn't jump on it like slobbering wolves.

"Ron Paul, loser again"
How about
"Rudy, loser again"

[Elizabeth]

HAHAHA... What a joke this is! Nice SMEAR JOB. You forgot to mention how the FRONTRUNNER Giulliani BARELY got more then Paul. Here is the media's darling running neck and neck with the one you're making fun of. Do you think Mr. Giulliani would appreciate this kind of talk about him? Paul went from nothing up. Giuliani's gone from top shelf down.

If there's ANYONE you should be commenting on it's the decline of the frontrunner, not the emergence of the underdog, in such a fashion.

What went wrong? Nothing. People don't know Ron Paul and the media is trying to make sure they don't and he still took a good share of the vote.

[José Roldan]

Despite the poor showing in NH, Ron Paul will never be considered a loser, by those who know him and to his many ardent supporters. He is a rare breed of politician, one that follows the dictates of his conscience with strict adherence to ethical principles. Ignoring the condescending tone of the editorial, it does raise a very legitimate question that deserves an honest hard look at the candidate and his positions vs popular opinion.
In a democracy, politics is the science of fulfilling the actual wants and needs of the people to gain favor. The popular candidate is not necessarily the best or the most ethical, but he who is most closely attuned to the demands of the majority, or mobocracy, as the case may be. That's why a GW Bush can be elected - twice, that's also why Hitler rose to power and why Hugo Chavez still runs the show and his mouth in Venezuela.
While the New Hampshire motto may be "Live Free or Die", the actual truth is that very few are actually willing to follow General Stark's admonition, in NH or anywhere else in this great, but hypocritical country. The American people have become used to comfort and luxury, and the vast majority have long given up liberty for cozy safety and security. The closest most ever get to the horrors of war or the agony of starvation is to view it on their televisions.
So: While the present administration bleeds the American treasure away through reckless deficit spending, enriching countries that tomorrow may be our enemies; while it erodes our liberties and justifies the torture that may someday be used against us; while it defends the immoral premise of preemptive war, that may soon be used by our enemies as an excuse to attack us; the typical American sheep is happy to continue paying his taxes, as long as he can sit in his comfortable home and be entertained in front of the tube, and the typical American parasite will be happy to continue to receive his government check in the mail, so he can do the same.
Liberty and fiscal conservatism is a hard-sell when the enslaved actually believe that they are free, and the consequences of poor monetary policy have not seriously impacted everyone's wallet, yet. But the signs of an impending crisis are evident: Yesterday, the news reported that Merrill Lynch considers that we are already in a recession, the BBC reported that the dollar vs the pound is the lowest it has been in 26 years, oil prices hover around $100 for a barrel of crude. The writing is on the wall, but being the bearer of bad news was never a popular vocation, as is being the doctor who has to deliver a gloomy prognosis and a necessary, but uncomfortable, prescription to save the patient.
The American people are not ready to listen to the advice of the good doctor, yet. But when the economy spirals into collapse, when the dollar is no longer respected around the world, when another Great Depression leaves the pantries empty and the television silenced, then might a Ron Paul stand a chance in reviving and bringing this country back to its senses, and maybe, its former glory as bastion of the free world.

[Trevor Fountain]

Why is Paul losing? Because to everyone involved he is essentially a third-party candidate. Even ignoring his Libertarian history -- the Republican party whose nomination Ron Paul is so unsuccessfully seeking doesn't exist any more, and hasn't for ages. Sometimes it seems almost surreal that Ron Paul and, say, Mitt Romney are even running for the same office, much less the same party nomination.

Dr. Paul is a candidate born a century too late, seeking the nomination of a party with whom he has little in common. That a surprisingly large number of supporters have flocked to his banner says a lot about the state of American politics, and likely -- as others have mentioned -- the future of the Republican party. In the here-and-now however, he's still an outside candidate with no place in either the primaries or the November elections. In a cut-and-dry race between a pair of indistinguishable politicians, whose got room for Ron Paul?

I'm as staunch a Paul supporter as you'll find, but we knew from the outset that he wasn't going to win, no matter how vocal our little minority became. In 2008 America, vocal minorities just don't sway elections.

[Douglas Findlay]

Ron Paul was excluded from the NH debate. Surely that cost him a percentage point or two, coming on the eve of the primary. And as the NH primary unfolded, the news tickers rarely mentioned Ron Paul. Even the CNN pie chart showed a large gray blank space ... virtually the same as Giuliani's slice ... but without Ron Paul's name on it. So yes, there is a blackout that Ron Paul supporters bemoan. Mainstream media covers the race like a sporting event, so he's not on the radar. But with the internet, mainstream media no longer has the stranglehold it once had. It can still supress and propagandize, but at least the web provides some competition.

But this isn't about Ron Paul. It's about the message he carries. Just a few months ago it would be unthinkable to see any libertarian, Republican or otherwise, get as many votes. The movement has been slow and steady, and that's the only way we can get our government back within the Consitution. The only way we can end the empire building by war profiteers. The only way we can avoid an utter collapse of our currency. Ron Paul's supporters need to stay in the fight for the long haul, especially when mainstream media writes premature obituaries.

[Jo Ram]

The bigger story is he virtually tied with Rudy and both he and Rudy were in the same ball park as Huck. Can Ron win the nomination? Very doubtful, but it was very doubtful he'd ever raise the money he did, it was very doubtful he'd ever get even close to 10% of the votes in any given state. It's not over until it's over. Ron Paul's the only true candidate for real change. The only straight talking non-robotic like human whose never worn that same stiff slick plastic suit shared by the other candidates. Unfortunately the sheep that are the masses are too ignorant to distinguish between the manufactured BS and the real deal. This is why little old ladies, who, if they've even heard of them, don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq vote. This is why Ivy league graduates with all the "knowledge" in the world, but no commonsense vote.

[Bill Henderson]

Dr. Paul may need to turn down (not off) the rhetoric on the war in Iraq, and speak more to the economy. I understand that for him, it all meshes together, but it seems that regardless of what question Dr. Paul is asked, he ties his answer to the need to bring all the troops home. That message did get him a hearing from a certain number of disaffected voters. But if Dr. Paul is going to actually persuade Republicans who are leaning toward the other candidates, he needs to make a stronger case for what he will do to put America on the road to prosperity.

I still plan on voting for him in the California primary.

[Daniel]

Ron Paul lost for many reasons. His recognition is low. He simply has not been a high visibility player over his political career. His Ideals appeal to many folks but most people consider themselves realists not Idealists.

In order to win anything he needs to get his name out over a longer period of exposure. He needs to be part of household conversation. There has not been enough time for that. Then he needs to convince people with concrete plans that his ideals have a fighting chance of becoming reality.

Go Ron Paul!!

[Ron Throop]

I just reread your article.
Look at how hostile you are to democracy. The supporters, the signs, the letter writing. Sounds like engaged citizens to me.
As a "reporter"... can you show the like with any other candidate?
Shouldn't you?
It's like you're trying to make Paul supporters eat crow.
Like "Gotcha!"
Like "Ha, ha ha... You hurt my feelings and now I'm gonna get you back."

You would do well with the old Pravda. You chastize democracy. As an aging man myself, I congradulate Paul's fervent supporters.
To think, all they want is a candidate to follow the constitution.
What a nuisance they've become, yes?

[DenisL]

It is a reality that the averages of all the polls are agreeing in the main part with the vote results for Ron Paul so far in NH and in Iowa. I have not heard of any credible evidence that there is voter fraud. As an enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter, one can only guess what is happening. People do apparently not believe that the Iraq war is bad for America. Americans do not yet believe that we are in for a VERY bad prolonged recession/depression. They are willing to sacrifice liberty for security and seem to like the Patriot Act. They do not realize that Ron Paul knows what needs to be done on these issues and what needs to be done to save Social Security, Medicare, and the economy. The top tier candidates are so far clueless on these issues. It is not difficult for me to believe that Ron Paul is the answer. What is difficult for me to believe is that ANYONE would trust the top tier candidates to tell the truth and to be consistent AND to follow up on their campaign promises. I frankly am at a loss on how to reach other Americans and how to convince them to stop voting for FEEL good candidates. All I know is that the only way for America to lose is for us to quit trying to elect people like Ron Paul. But I will also buy gold and continue to get my finances in order before the worst hits.

[Jana Murray]

I would say, that as I have always suspected, the election process is a sham. It doesn't really matter to me if Ron Paul is not nominated, I will write him in when it comes voting time, without hesitation!

[Michael Toth]

Well this morning's crow tasted pretty bad. I am disappointed that the N.H. voters did not turn out for Paul. It's time to get his support off the internet and into the voting booth. We have the chance to right this ship we call America. All hands on deck. Let's get going. Time is running out. It's time for the old Hail Mary pass. Throw it.

[libertynow]

I guess idiots have cell phones too.
Lost? I would not call getting 30 min. on CSPAN to try to educate people on freedom a loss. Every time Ron Paul gets to teach about freedom and explain how we have lost our way as a country and what it take to get back on track he wins. The people who lost were those who still refuse to believe in freedom even after hearing Dr. Paul's words of wisdom.
Americans fail to learn from history. They think McCain or some other neocon is going to keep them safe. But it is their pollicy of intervention, reckless spending and lack of faith in freedom that will bring us down. Great nations do not fall to millitary action or terrorism. The fall because they go broke supporting millitary empires. The score means nothing and when we keep voting for fools we all end up losers.

[Mike Donahue]

The reason is people are not aware of the corrupt Federal Reserve system. If people knew the nature of banking in this country and what a scam they have - the Ron Paul Revolution would become more popular. Ron Paul is the only candidate that understands what a stranglehold the banks have in keeping us indebted to them perpetually.

All the other points people talk about are trivial in comparison.

[Larry Redden]

I think Paul's votes in New Hampshire came up short for a few reasons. One comes from the internet movement itself. By its nature, his support is decentralized which is fine nationally, but not so hot for state primaries. Secondly, he has a group of people speaking in his name who are less than savory, I won't call them supporters, they may or may not identify themselves as such, because their actions do nothing to help Paul and create negative press for him by breaking the golden rule of campaigning for your candidate, "Stick to the platform material" The grassroots efforts and the nice slogans and logos are nice, I like them a lot myself, this isn't what I mean about stick to the material. I'm talking about Truthers, co-opting Paul, I'm talking about racists and cessationists taking advantage of his campaigns growing support to try and further their own agendas. Third, there was, early on, a need to get Paul's name heard and many supporters thought this needed to be done by any means necessary. As Paul's profile has raised, the tactics needed to change and they have not, creating negative press for him. Finally, regardless of whether a conspiracy existed against Paul or not, (I don't think there was) there have been more than a few "hit pieces" that vastly misrepresent Paul's views. In some cases, such as the New Republic article, rehashing a "controversy" from years ago that was already addressed, dealt with, and in some cases retracted by the papers that mentioned it. The New Republic piece was particularly hurtful I feel to Paul based on its timing. All the information in it is so old and the observations made are so thoroughly conjecture, its obvious that little to no research was actually done and so the piece could have been released well before the Primary. The editor/author of the article obviously wished it to influence the primary and wanted the Paul campaign to have little to no time to respond.

All in all, it sums up to this: 1) Paul's campaign didn't have enough control of its supporters and volunteers. 2) Opposition was willing to stoop pretty damn low to smear him. 3) Fringe special interests have misrepresented his views for their own agendas.

[Jim Hines]

I'm receptive to Paul’s message but not inspired by the delivery of that message. He doesn't look like he wants to win. Just as Clinton showed her "vulnerability" Paul needs to show his "masculinity". For example in the debate he was "allowed" to participate in for the New Hampshire contest he acquiesced to the snarky Thompson who scoffed at Paul’s assertion that printing money out of thin air, borrowing beyond our means and “playing emperor” is exacerbating our current fiscal condition and at the heart of most of our other woes. He didn't hold on to the conch shell when he had it. He let Thompson and the others smirk and make snide comments without responding without "enough" of a challenge. Nothing wrong with "speaking softly" but now is the moment to bring out the "big stick". Now is the time for “bold” leadership.

[Michael Toth]

One last thing. Paul is not a loser. We the people are.

[Paul Supporter]

I am a Paul supporter who was always cautiously optimistic. In Iowa, I thought 3rd was a possibility, but not likely, and his 10% after all was not so bad. However, there were lots of signs that we would do very well in NH with 3rd place as likely. You would consider that the added protection of a private polling booth (vs. a caucus) would provide cover to those unwilling to take a public stand for Paul. However, despite years of a pointless war, billions wasted and our rights trampled on, a state with a majority of Independents went with safe choices for more of the same: McCain, Clinton and Obama.

The Live Free or Die state it clearly is no longer.

What happened? Apparently, up until the actual vote, people were willing to talk a decent game about really wanting change but, when forced to make an actual decision, were incapable of following through. Yes, yes, people will say: "But Hillary's for change! But Obama's for change!". Let's be realistic, with the exception of Paul, the following can be said about all the major candidates:
* They believe in government programs, want to increase them and will fund them though taxation (or more debt)
* They all supported the war at the start and, even if they supposedly oppose it now, are unable to provide any real plan or timeline for ending it
* They all supported destructive legislation such as The Patriot Act
* They all believe in the War on Terror
* They all believe in an interventionist foreign policy
* They all believe in the War on Drugs

How unfortunate.

[Kelly]

Um...I think we still have 47 states left - including Super Tuesday. Let's not forget that Bill Clinton lost, I believe, the first 6 primaries when he first ran for president.

We have a long way to go and it's not fair to call Ron Paul a loser yet - especially considering that he has barely spent the 20 million raised in Q4.

There is no doubt that Ron Paul is a long-shot and most Ron Paul supporters understand this. Also, this is just the start of a long-term trend, hopefully: a trend where free-market and Libertarian ideas begin to have a real life in U.S. politics. We will fight until the bitter end to get Ron Paul elected. But, unfortunately, for Andrew Malcolm, he will have to continue to listen to our cries for change long after the 2008 election is finished.

[Jay Straw]

The problem is this First in the Nation mentallity that iowans and new hampshireites have (or at least that's what these people seem to say on the news), they need to find the winner, because no one wants to vote for a loser, and the nation depends on them--it's crap!! Really, how can anyone expect who they really want to win to win when they're so concerned with how everyone else is doing? So I feel it's a combination of the primary system (something that everyone has known is flawed, and getting flawed-er) speaking in creoles of doubt and disillusionment, the fact that no matter what your context-ignoring argument is media coverage of Dr. Paul is still nothing like it is of other canidates (remember the ABC debates Saturday? Ron Paul acted like an intelligent human when Guiliani et al started yelling at him during several things he was talking about and they wouldn't let up, and the moderator didn't get involved. No one was allowed to talk over anyone else like that, and that's a good metaphor for the rest of the media problem) is what caused this. He certainly didn't win New Hampshire, but even a few thousand votes here or there to make sure he didn't end up 4th or 3rd could have been fraudulently removed or something along those lines (I'm not saying they were, just /could/ be) so there's a lot to figure out. basically, we need to get the word out to as many people as possible for super tuesday, and just keep setting good examples. I know the media hates good examples (the national ones, anyway...) but that's what we'll keep doing. (I wrote most of this on my laptop in the bathroom when I woke up--this is only the kind of example I give to people who I don't think put very much effort into the examples or articles they gave me)

[Libro Ranger]

Paul lost. Freedom lost. So what else is new in the late great USA?