Ron Paul makes his move

Rep. Ron Paul, the oldest person remaining in the presidential race and the only one who's also simultaneously running for Congress (you know, on the off chance he doesn't reach the White House), came in second in the Montana Republican caucuses, right behind former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The 72-year-old onetime ob-gyn, who was the most successful fundraiser among all Republicans last quarter, got 25% of the GOP vote in Big Sky Country to Romney's 38%. Paul also beat Sen. John McCain, who got only 22%, and Mike Huckabee, who trailed with 15%.

In North Dakota, Paul, with 21%, fell behind McCain, at 23%, and Romney, at 36%.

Elsewhere, Paul, a strict constitutionalist who opposes the Iraq war and in 1988 ran for....

president on the Libertarian ticket, slipped back to his familiar single-digit showings, despite the determined, earnest efforts of thousands of outspoken Ron Paul Revolutionaries, including an endorsement from THE Jane Roe, an eight-state ad campaign, not one but two appearances on Jay Leno's show and stunts such as hiring a plane to circle downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday dragging a giant Ron Paul banner.

With incomplete results, Paul looked to finish in the Golden State with about 4% of the GOP vote, way behind Huckabee at 12%, Romney at 25% and McCain at 44%. Alaska, where Paul had thought he might do well, also turned out to be disappointing, as Romney easily won.

In West Virginia, Paul's forces did gain three of the state's 18 GOP convention delegates in a deal to throw in with the winning Huckabee supporters and deny Romney his expected win there.

In Maine, where the arcane uncommitted caucus system defies explanation, Paul forces finished third in voting recently but believe they will end up ahead of McCain in terms of state convention delegates and second only to Romney. Paul also finished second to Romney in the Nevada caucuses and ahead of the now departed Rudy Giuliani in Iowa.

In other Super Tuesday states, some with incomplete results, Paul's showing was not so super. He finished last virtually everywhere -- with 8% in Colorado; 6% in New York and Tennessee; 5% in New Jersey, Arkansas and Illinois; 4% in Missouri and Arizona; and 3% in Oklahoma, Alabama, Massachusetts and Utah, though he beat Huckabee there.

Many in Paul's dedicated legions of supporters profess incomprehension over how he does not attract wider support among voters. The only explanation they can imagine is that he would do much better in elections if it wasn't for a mainstream media bias that forces supporters to conspire on the Internet, has barred him from a major New Hampshire debate and often eliminates him from regular candidate listings.

For instance, The Times' recent tepid Editorial Board endorsement of John McCain in the California Republican primary discussed every remaining GOP candidate except Paul, who's outlasted more famous competitors like Giuliani and Fred Thompson and is the only GOP candidate to increase his fundraising  every quarter last year.

Many will now fill the comments section beneath this item with complaints about the mainstream media's bias and little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum. And, of course, they are welcome, as always.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Timur Rozenfeld]

I am not sure what you mean by the sentence before last but the bias is in the main stream media, except here where you have been following Paul for a while.

[Jemison Thorsby]

Yes, the LA Times blog has given regular coverage to the Paul campaign. This does not negate the criticism of inequitable treatment of the presidential candidates across the media spectrum. In addition to much less overall "face time" with major outlets, the placement and tone of what stories do run inevitably minimize Paul's candidacy and positions. The stories focus on his "long-shot chances," his "maverick libertarianism" and "quixotic appeal to legions of internet followers," rather than discussing what about his stance distinguishes him from the other candidates. The American public has not been well served by this coverage.

[Jemison Thorsby]

Yes, the LA Times blog has given regular coverage to the Paul campaign. This does not negate the criticism of inequitable treatment of the presidential candidates across the media spectrum. In addition to much less overall "face time" with major outlets, the placement and tone of what stories do run inevitably minimize Paul's candidacy and positions. The stories focus on his "long-shot chances," his "maverick libertarianism" and "quixotic appeal to legions of internet followers," rather than discussing what about his stance distinguishes him from the other candidates. The American public has not been well served by this coverage.

[Mark Eibner]

Andrew- of course the Sheeple- who eat-sleep and breath MSM would take Paul 1000% more seriously if they "pushed" or favored Dr. Paul. In fact think of all the questions and issues that could really be brought up during the debates-as well as every day reports. I contend that there is no question that MSM is now the King maker-more than it ever has been...and they know it too. If anything, for now, thank God for the internet and basic social media that has helped spread the word of Paul and others. In China, with all the filters and screeners...Dr Paul would be in a detention camp along with most of his followers for "re-education". But- that is coming soon for us too. Funny thing is that the majority of the Republication party is so far off base from the core principals of the party....that they will vote a national soiclaist in either way. Today, a vote for either party is a vote for Big Brother...Anyone who claims different is under the effects of MSM.

[Matt]

McCain is older than Paul.

(Actually, he's not. McCain won't be 72 until summer. Paul already is.)

[hello]

Imagine how well R.P. would have done if the media didn't black him out. He was censored or removed from local and national newspapers, radio talk shows (NPR and conservative), on local TV news - it's like they made him disappear - literally - by removing his name and picture from the competition. Most people I talked to never heard of him. The main stream media is officially a fascist propaganda machine. The U.S.A. is on it's way down thanks to complicit "journalists" and "reporters" who would rather keep their jobs than insist the editors be fair. You need only look in the mirror when things go bad in this country.

[Ben Chaput Lowell, MA]

I think you guys have been very fair in your coverage of Dr. Paul, you have certainly covered him more than others in the MSM. While I think he would have done better with more media coverage, I just don't think America is ready for his message yet. Still it is encouraging to see hundreds of thousands of people across the country voting their conscience, even if they know he has little chance to win the Presidency, and at the end of the day I think that will be the legacy he leaves behind.

[Chris]

Hello Andrew!
Thank you very much for your article.
I am in Kentucky and our primaries are in May, and hopefully Paul will still be running then.
Today, alas, I am nursing my wounds as well as taking in the horrific information that tornados killed perhaps 50 people in Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas last night.
*Sigh*
I am still determined to canvass my neighborhood, my Ron Paul signs are going to stay on my car and I will continue to interject any Ron Paul facts in conversations with my friends. I still love his message of freedom and liberty. Maybe it's just too much for most of the country to handle.
His message of small government may just seem too unusual for most. They would rather be led by decisions of big government with their blinders on.
Sincerely,
Christina from Louisville

[tim, minnesota]

Thanks for the very nice reporting, especialy the Maine,deal. again thanks

[Frank N Stein]

There are of course always people who take in evidence and then amplify it into a conspiracy. It is ridiculous to believe the heads of the major news organizations sat down and decided to blackball Ron Paul. But you would have to ignore the evidence in front of your eyes to conclude that there is no mainstream media bias with regard to Ron Paul, shown by the lack of coverage in primaries where Ron Paul has done well, trying oh so hard to not mention his name when reporting on results or who is still in the race, and to write off the person who received the most fundraising money as not worthy of attention. Just play through the last few "debates" with a stopwatch, to see if the time alloted to each candidate was reasonable.
But mainstream media isn't to blame for his non-frontrunner showing - it's the American people themselves. Let's face it, it was nice to see that some out there actually believe in the Constitution and the principles that formed this nation, who don't buy into the emotionalism on the left or the warmongering on the right. But it's a minority, and likely will remain so, until it will be far too late to do much about it.
Ron Paul supporters have reason to be depressed, but they also have reason to feel good that this campaign that has exposed kindred souls out there. You are not alone, and you are not to blame for a Hillary or McCain presidency. Little comfort when your tax rate increases, the value of the dollar drops, and your country is at eternal war, but as Rumsfeld might say, you don't live under the government you want but the government you have.

[Kevin K]

My first post here. Not a lot of Ron Paul energy today. Lots of defeated posts everywhere.
My feeling is, its a MOVEMENT. If any of what we RP supporters have been saying is true, we wont have a chance of winning a Primary process.

The truth and hard facts are NOT what America wants to hear right now. Just listen to what the Democrats are saying (or not saying) to see what I mean. People just want to feel good....so they vote for someone who makes them feel good. Issues are secondary.

However, if what DR Paul is saying is true, the problems in America will get worse with the Candidates who remain and eventually become President. If so, the MOVEMENT must continue. It must grow, and not be limited to a faulty Democratic process.

Whos with me?

[JimD]

Thank you Ron Paul, for waking up millions of Americans, despite the obvious efforts of MSM to silence you. You put yourself on the line to save this country, and the seeds of liberty have been replanted. It may take 8, 12 or even 20 years for the plant to reach maturity, but Americans WILL take back this great nation. Without you this country would have continued down a dreadful path. Thank you Ron Paul, for saving America.

[Susan]

I have a question. Why does the media report "Hillary COUGHS and TEARS UP, NEWS AT 11" , but Ron Paul gets virtually no coverage?

[hello]

"...little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum." Andrew Malcolm: YOU are not "main stream media" - you are a blog. Main stream media is FOX news, CNN, local and national television news, local and national newspapers. Thank you for giving Paul some credit at least, but on local "jabber" radio - which is pathetic - the masses of "educated" idiots (college educated - but still no critical thinking ability) in this country believe what they hear and see on TV/radio/print. When talking heads spout "Ron Paul is not viable" people believe it. The New World Order is right: reduce the population - the masses are stupid cockroaches. I think I'll go back to being apathetic again, thank you very much.

[Alison Murphy]

I live in Memphis Tennessee. No I'm not so naive as to have expected Ron Paul to win Tennessee.

But when you consider that he had more votes than Thompson and Giuliani going into Super Tuesday, and more cash donations than any other Republican candidate for Q4, you would have expected a little press coverage?? Instead, The Commercial Appeal, The Tennessean, and the University of Memphis paper all left Dr. Paul out of their voter's guides.

Completely LEFT OUT, no mention that he was still running, no articles on underdog Paul, nothing. This is not journalism, it is not bias, it is SABOTAGE pure and simple.

[Forrest Gray]

Hey Andrew, remember that McCain is less than 1 year younger than Ron Paul.

[Teflon Ron]

Ron Paul, was treated as a loon from the outset. It's hilarious that Dr. Paul sounds exactly like Ronald Reagan but without the good looks and great diction.
The difference between the both men is Ron Paul battle against the Federal Reserve is what allied the powers that be against him.

Ronald Reagan does sound like Dr. Paul, watch here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4

[Josh]

Young liberals who were listening to Scott Ritter and the alternative media during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq are already familiar with the mainstream press. Now young Republicans have become familiar with the same machine. Thankfully, voices in the mainstream media are spending more and more of their credibility capital with young people. I don't know what they're spending it on, and I don't care. All I know is that I can't wait until it's all gone.

[don cooper]

I think the problem is that Americans aren't smart enough to understand what is happening in America, what Ron Paul is preaching and what will happen in the future if we continue to elect professional politicians such as McCain or Clinton or Obama. Americans deserve what they get.

[WATYF]

"Many will now fill the comments section beneath this item with complaints about the mainstream media's bias and little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum"

There's no contradiction. You said it yourself... when an national newspaper issues an editorial listing the candidates and their positions on issues, they routinely leave out Ron Paul. When a national cable news network talks about the candidates (week in and week out) they routinely leave out Paul (and when they occasionally do mention him, they talk about the "long-shot, unelectable" candidate who's also running).

The *mainstream* media IS ignoring him.

Do you think that because you posted an article about him on a freaking *BLOG* that it negates that fact?

This isn't the "mainstream media"... this is the internet.

He has tons of coverage on the internet... he doesn't need any more. What he needs is people to say his name and explain his views on NATIONAL TELEVISION with the same frequency that they do so for all of the other candidates. *Then* we could determine what the true effects of his message are.

[Steve Dasbach]

Online media sources have given Congressman Paul extensive coverage. This blog in particular has regularly covered his campaign. Local media coverage is also generally fair and balanced.

The situation is quite different for the network news shows, cable news networks, Associated Press, and major newspapers like the New York Times and USA Today. Campaign events and accomplishments that are routinely covered for McCain, Romney, Giuliani, etc. are routinely ignored for Paul.

For example, CNN, which has provided some of the better coverage, has been showing its "Ballot Bowl" where they present clips of the candidates speaking at rallies for extended periods. All the candidates have been shown extensively, speaking at events and rallies with several hundred to several thousand people, except Paul, even though Paul draws crowds that equal or exceed the other Republicans. A recent speech in Minnesota drew over 4000 people -- none of the national networks covered any portion of it.

The MSM decided at the start of this campaign that Paul had no chance to win, and chose to ignore his campaign. This despite the fact that he raised more money, attracted more donors and volunteers, and was more visible on the ground than his opponents. In effect, they decided that the American people weren't going to hear about Paul, unless they somehow tracked down information about him online.

By showering some candidates with coverage while ignoring similar accomplishments by other candidates, the media is going beyond reporting the news and is biasing the process. It is an affront to democracy and those responsible should be ashamed of themselves.

I no longer feel that I can accept anything I hear from the MSM as being true -- there have simply been too many examples of them shading their coverage to match their biases. They have lost all credibility as objective news sources.

[Speaker73]

Undoubtedly, it was a poor finish for Paul, and it indicates that a large part of the nation is not yet ready for his message. It is a pity, since the economic issues that will face the next president will make his words look quite prescient.

As for the question of media bias, I don't think a truly unbiased person could find it debatable. The other "brand name" candidates received priceless amounts of free media coverage. On several occasions, it seemed that the major news outlets had to really contort their coverage to find ways to exclude him from news pieces that obviously demanded his inclusion. On the other hand, I don't think the lack of equitable media coverage swung the election. Paul's message was out there, and his volunteers were inspired evangelists. Fairer media coverage would undoubtedly have increased his vote count significantly, but I don't think it would have mattered in the end. Americans are still complacent about their leaders and that will not change until there is a serious crisis.

The best hope is that the Ron Paul movement can avoid dissipation. While the media loves to talk about the candidates themselves, rather than their ideas, the Ron Paul movement has been much more about the ideas than about the man himself. If the Ron Paul Revolution truly is a revolution, then the seeds he has planted should, over the next few years, germinate into a true ideological movement. His ideas are true and timeless, and I am confident, sadly, that the difficult script for America for the next half decade will ensure that his ideas find a larger and larger audience. If the movement can keep its center together, it will grow, and come the next election cycle, will be several times stronger. Like Goldwater created Reagan, Paul's legacy hopefully will be the emergence of a younger, more charismatic, more TV-friendly leader with his same character virtues and rigorous platform, and more importantly, a legion of devotees to true Constitutional government to rally their man and the nation.

[Jeff]

Andrew,
While I agree with your assesment on Paul's results....how can you claim that
"mainstream media's bias and little recognition that the words themselves in this item contradict that claim in this forum"
While this may be "the L.A. Times"...it is in the BLOG section, and that IMHO does not constitute "mainstream media" coverage.

[Billa]

There is a Mainstream bias to ignore or seldom refer to Ron Paul. Almost as if he has been mocked and laughed at since his candidacy The truth is that American's do not deserve a candidate like Ron Paul. America is not prepared to have a person in office that will make America grow up. If Ron Paul became president he would strive to ensure that every person were able to be free to make their own decisions and to return to a time when the Constitution set the groundwork for our government. Americans couldn't handle that. We are too child like to be able to own Firearms, we can not be relied upon to take care of our own medical care. We can't be trusted with the responsibility of living without a life of constant taxation. As Americans we support American Idols and American Gladiators more than we truly support American Soldiers. Buying a yellow Ribbon and affixing it to your bumper does not a patriot make. Even the wives of soldiers don't support their troops as the divorce rate among enlisted men climbs to Record heights. We deserve to have our dollar fall to all time lows, if we continue to print more money soon we might have a weaker dollar than Mexico or even worse Zimbabwe. It should not surprise anyone that Ron Paul had such a lousy turnout for the vote. He wants Americans to take America back from its captors and he offers the only route to do so. Unfortunately that route doesn't offer an auto pilot and it can't be done in 22 minutes with time left for commercials. He is a rare breed who will speak the truth in politics, we do not deserve such a candidate. So kill your babies and pay your taxes, enjoy new government expansions and good luck with the recession. The FBI should be at your house soon to scan your tatoos and catalog your eye scans. On the Whole I'd rather be in Utah.

[Bernie Yeater]

Ahhh Andrew some Ron Paul supporters are not that bad.... I am thrilled with what Ron has been able to do, some have actually dusted off a copy of the constitution and have wondered what is in there. My donations to his campain have done more to educate the public them my years of support to the Constitution party and other third party movements. Perhaps the Republican party will decide if the big tent is big enough for us.