Ron Paul scales back hopeless effort, refuses to back McCain

He's not really quitting. He's not really suspending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. He's not promising victory, just to keep on keeping on. But, in effect, Rep. Ron Paul, at 72 the oldest candidate for president and the only GOP candidate to oppose the Iraq war, is facing reality.

In a statement to supporters on his website, first mentioned here early Saturday, Paul admits, "With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get." In a new 14-minute campaign video, Paul says he wants to clarify some confusion

His campaign currently claims a total of 42, 1,149 shy of the total to win and some 650 behind the GOP leader, though other estimates give him only 16. He took third in Washington over the weekend and fourth in Kansas behind even Mitt Romney, who'd dropped out. Even if he won every delegate still available, Paul could not capture the party's nomination in September in St. Paul, which is no relation.

Despite ridicule by other GOP candidates, despite getting significantly less time to speak during debates and, in one instance, even being barred from a GOP debate by Fox News although....

he'd collected more votes than those included, Paul repeated his vow not to attempt a third-party bid, which would drain priceless conservative votes from the party's nominee. "I am a Republican," he said, "and I remain a Republican." He did say he'd be reducing staff and offices.

Now, whether the 10-term congressman with the libertarian ideals, actually endorses Sen. John McCain is something else. Paul has said we should bring overseas troops home and invest the saved money in fixing America; McCain has vowed to stay overseas, especially Iraq, as long as it takes for success.

This morning Paul told one of our sister newspapers, "I cannot support anybody with the foreign policy he advocates, you know, perpetual war," said Paul. "That is just so disturbing to me."

In his website statement, Paul then alludes to probably the largest factor for his refocused campaign: He's trying to run simultaneously for president and his House seat in Texas' 14th Congressional District and faces a challenger in the March 4 primary, Chris Peden, a city councilmen from Friendswood. So Paul will be on two ballots that day.

"If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat," he said, "all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen." In a new 14-minute campaign video, Paul says he needs to clarify confusion over his dropping out, that he is just altering his schedule to allow primary campaigning in his home district and he intends to compete fully in all remaining primaries and on to the convention.

Although largely ignored as irrelevant by many media outlets, though not The Ticket, the story of Ron Paul and his thousands of determined, sometimes aggressive, usually good-natured followers is one of the more interesting of the current election season.

Virtually spontaneously, disaffected Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and newcomers to the political process began gathering around the plain-spoken Paul last summer and with their nearly $20 million in smaller donations turned him into the most successful GOP fundraiser in the last quarter. On one day he raised $6 million online and was the only Republican to increase his contributions in every quarter of 2007.

With some 1,400 meet-up groups across the country, letter-writing and sign-waving campaigns and creative publicity stunts, they helped Paul to some second, fourth and fifth place finishes in states such as Nevada, Montana and Maine. He beat Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire and financed an eight-state advertising campaign.

His boosters, who worked the Internet assiduously to right wrongs and make Paul's case, maintain that a corporate-media conspiracy to ignore him prevented the former ob-gyn from getting his less-government message out to most Americans. He certainly was ignored and, only recently, included when providing poll results on TV. But additionally, his strict constitutionalist ideas for reducing the federal government and abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve Bank and returning to the gold standard may be just too radical for a country today facing international terrorist threats and the current economic uncertainty.

Even the tone of hundreds of comments left here by Paul supporters changed in recent days from aggressive advocacy to reluctant acceptance of the disappointing reality of continued single-digit poll results.

It would be interesting if those supporters took the time here now to leave comments explaining why they think Paul never caught on to a wider audience (we already know about the media conspiracy) and what they think about his refocused campaign and their spent donations.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Brian]

There are far more Ron Paul supporters out there than you think. Also, this election is far from over despite all of the MSM propaganda.

We will prove this to our country when we march on Washington DC!

[Ariel]

The reason Paul never caught on is pegged in this article, that is, the fact that the media largely ignored him. You can't vote for someone you don't know, and the media did virtually NOTHING to help the people get to know Ron Paul. In areas where precints were worked, Paul won. Florida was a good example showing that in precints worked by Ron's supporters, Paul beat Rudy (who had spent a ton of money and time there). When/where people knew/know about what Paul stands for, they vote for him. It's difficult to get that done against a virtual media blackout.

[SENG]

I believe that Ron Paul is the way to go if this country wants to survive. His message is straight forward & truthful. Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country do not want the truth, they want a handout! The government and business have been going behind Americans backs for at least 30 years planning the North American Union & the SPP.

So, my question back to all that responded is how to get Ron Paul elected in 2008? It seems that the media is useless and can't be trusted and who knows what goes on with electronic voting?! So, what is the answer?

[Brian]

I like Ron Paul's ideology. The problem is that it is just that- Ideology. Ideally it would be nice to just "bring the troops home" but logistically it would be disasterous. The war is something that NEEDS to be ended, BUT it needs to be ended properly. Just pulling out would cause a power vacuum in iraq that would surely be filled with unfriendly folks. If we pulled out out of iraq in the inflammatory state that it's in, it would remain in that state indefinitely- destabilizing that region. It would be better to try to somewhat stabilize the country and let them gradually govern themselves more and more. That's my problem with Ron Paul's proposals. They're too simple. What he's proposing to do is just not that easy. It does sound nice though. I really don't like any of the candidates though. Obama is running the most HOLLOW campaign i've ever witnessed. He say "Change" but he won't exactly specify what he intends to do. Romney and Hillary seem to be the only two candidates that put forth ideas with any substance to them.

[Scott]

The people supporting McCain are about as old as he is (will he even make it to November? Paul seems 20 years younger than McCain though they are the same chronologically.) Seems the GOP has destroyed their best chance at a FUTURE. This will be further destroyed when any of the three Democrats running push through Amnesty. Obviously, the GOP has been compromised - all they care about is globalism/America-Last. Bye-bye America - it was nice knowing you.

[wazir]

good riddance. ron paul didn't connect with the voters because, as his years of newsletters showed, he is a racist anti-semite, and also a nutcase liable to jump off the debate stage at any moment to go track down bigfoot. the millions he raised? well, poor patsies, it will find its way into his reelection campaign for congress and into the pay envelopes of his family-member staff.
a reformer?
give me a break.
wazir

[Michael Tashman]

As a Bush/McCain-voting conservative Republican (yes, I mean what I said), I have to say that I think the mainstream Republican voter has more in common with Paul's Libertarian/constitutional ideals than many of these comments would lead you to believe. However, if the often contemptuous tone of the anti-"NeoCon" comments continues to drown out the limited government side of Paul's appeal, the chances of Paul's ideas having a significant impact on the Republican platform are probably dim.

In other words, I think you do your own cause a disservice if you alienate Republican voters like myself who agree with strict constructionist, literal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, small government arguments, but have a different opinion on the need for international intervention as a national security concern. If Paul's primary appeal for you is his anti-war position, fine -- we disagree; but if you support him more for his small government argument (bearing in mind that federal entitlement programs cost hugely more than the Iraq war -- whatever our opinions on the war are), then don't overlook the common cause you have with many Republicans like myself.

[b.r.watkins]

Ron Paul is a total wack job!! How can you look at yourself in the mirror and support a...man who calls America a war monger. Shame on all of you. I respect RuPaul more than Ron Paul, at least RuPaul knows he is a joke.

[christian riffert]

A better question is why no media outlets question the trampling of the US constitution via undeclared wars (we haven't had a war since WWII), executive orders & signing statements, and in George Bush's case numerous outright statements he has released admitting that he will not follow this or that law.

And when we finally get a person of integrity who actually will follow the Oath of Office...to defend and obey the constitution (not optional) --he is ignored. It does not say much of the USA.

[John]

This presidential campaign will have cost a billion dollars by it's end. With that much money flowing to the candidates what does it matter who's nominated? They are bought and sold at any case. The system is broken and it's hard to imagine how to fix it.

[Fredngrady]

Ron Paul has a wonderfull platform witht the exception of Iraq. Which to me is the most important. If we do not win in Iraq, it will cause untold loss of life here in the states and bolster radical islam to push forward it goal of convert or die. I support Dr. Paul in all his other initiatives. I think he has the most drawn up plans of any candidate and do have a lot of respect for him. But on the issue of Iraq, he and I just disagree. And sadly because of this I can not get behind his campaign. I wish him the best and hope he will garner support for someof his ideas, like abolishing the IRS I think his along with Huckabee pushing this in the front of the country may allow us to start thinking about this. And for people to stop calling us nuts. But this is a consumption basd economy now and needs to be taxed as such. During the baby boom it was an expansion and manufacturing economy so we taxed wages. This now is one of the reasons why so many jobs go overseas. We can not compete in countrys with little to no employment tax, as well as our corporate taxes are 40-60% greater than other nations. We have to find new ways to fund the machine so we as a work force can stay competitave and keep our middle class in this country.

Just my 2 cents

[NH]

Paul will continue til the end. McInsane's jowls might explode before then after all (we can only hope right? LOL) and Paul is the only one that has the money and who is a true conservative. Too many people think of Isane and Huckster as interchangeable with Democrats, so essentially if not Paul the GOP has lost anyway.

There has been massive voter fraud in NH and everywhere. Success breeds success and every time he won a caucus (LA, WA) the totals were NOT reported or some other straw poll was reported instead. So the 'perception' given by the media was that he had no support. What other candidate had 300 sign holders outside Anderson Cooper's show at the hotel in Manchester the night before the primary in NH? NONE. They could not help but show that.

Paul supporters will NOT vote for a Democrat so even if he does not run third party (which I think he is smart NOT to do) the GOP is not going to win because you see -- they NEED US.

No matter what, Paul's movement will live on and we will work at the local levels to bring back sanity to this country. He has been responsible for bringing more people back to the GOP and now we're going to make it what it is supposed to be. The party that preserves the REPUBLIC, under the consitution.

[Joan Wood]

Ron Paul didn't catch on with the general public for a number of reasons - the primary one being the obvious intent of corporate dominated media to block him from coverage and public access. He was repeatedly, deliberately and obviously ignored by the media and by most political "pundits", whose main interest is in maintaining the status quo that provides them with a well-fed living.

Even if he had exposure, however, Paul probably would not have caught on as the ideas he espoused are too complicated at this point for the average American, who has been deliberately badly educated and informed over the past few decades, to even understand. He represents those who think the safest and best course for this country is to encourage self-reliance, which of course is anathema to government officials and all those who rely on government hand-outs, which frankly....is much of the country now. People vote for two reasons - emotions (hence the Obama phenomena) and self interest. Paul may simply hearken back to a self-reliant, independent, government/authority mistrusting America that no longer exists in our current weak-minded, pathologically dependent age. I think we may have reached that point in our society where we are simply unwilling and unable to actually resolve the problems that face us as solving them requires both the acceptance of responsibility, which few are willing to take anymore in any sphere of American life, and the awareness that we may have to make sacrifices to do so. People aren't willing to do that anymore.

[Old Ben Franklin]

Ron Paul. O, Braveheart! O, Champion of Freedom!
The forces of greed and evil are arrayed against you, But stand now, as always, in defiance of tyranny,
Onward good soldier, onward! Your forefathers are with you now. Your deeds and your courage will not be forgotten! O, Braveheart!

[PK Hudson]

I'll give you one guess as to who ran for President on the Libertarian ticket in '88. After the experience, Dr. Paul fully realized we were locked into a 2-party system, as sick as that is for our failing Republic's health. The political (ruling) elite has far too much power to circumvent, so a very determined Ron Paul tried the only thing he could do--approach the issues from the inside of this nearly-invincible machine.

Problem is, no one in leadership has conveniently forgotten that he is mostly libertarian, an ideal that has so many shining points but some fatal socio-economic flaws.

Do your research and you will see that libertarian ideals begin to break down when faced with the complexities of reality, and that all libertarian experiments in the world, Chile and New Zealand, have been disasters for the common person and overall country health. No one wants those kinds of risks for the world superpower, and they know Ron Paul will push for those risks. Libertarian values sound incredibly promising on paper to most middle- and upper-class people until they dig deeper and think through the realities of human nature.

No, I am not a Ron Paul opponent, but I understand the sad reality, and I refuse to throw my vote away on such a great risk (you haven't really seen gridlock until you upset the governing values held by the majority in the other branches of our government--10 points to anyone who truly understands the nature of our system of checks and balances). As a one-time student of political philosophy, I understand the mechanism that allows a country to grow great is -not- the same mechanism that allows the country to remain great, no matter how much we wish it were true (that we could "return to our Constitutional roots"). Strict Constitutionalists would destroy the country as surely as the socialists would (will).

Sorry to all those who dream of a paladin that enters Washington and rips out the corruption, but I address the reality which says that without a full-scale revolution (which would hurt more than it helps), no lasting good will come of this election process.

[Simon]

One Truth here: I will NOT cast a vote for any Presidential candidate other than Paul. It's that simple; after giving the GOP my vote for almost 3 decades, they have wasted their opportunity to do good.

As a male animal which 'does its own thing' is worthless, so, too, this GOP Elephant is no longer needed.

Perhaps the GOP should change their 'mascot' to: 'Lizards of Dirty Water'.

[Tom Atkinson]

I am a supporter of Ron Paul. I believe he did not better than he did because (1). His message is based on the constitution and both major parties basically ignore the constitution, (2). The elite, those who run the Fed and its friends in the media and congress did not like his message of needing to do away with the Fed and restore a sound money system (with gold and silver as the basis for our currency, something with Artilce 1 Section 10 of the constitution calls for) and (3) a vast majority of our people are now socialist in their thinking and Ron Paul is anything but a socialist.

It is a shame that a true, 100% conservative has been in this race and has been all but ignored by the "conservatives" in our county. They have shown their true colors by failing to support a man who needs to be in the whitehouse if we wish to save our nation.

[Big Bakin]

Ron Paul won the election...even if the vast majority of Pubs didn't vote for him...it's too bad this country never picks the best candidate - just the most popular guy at the high school...
The revolution is just beginning...
Read Kent Wead's article...

[Doug]

Correction, Paul did not lose to Romney in the KS Caucus. Paul took 3rd

http://ksgopcaucus.org/results.htm

[RMBird]

Well, we can see how Paul is treated in this "post-mortem" by Andrew Malcolm. He wants to know what we think about how our money was spent, as if it were wasted. ALL campaign money is "wasted" on all but the eventual presidential winner by this measurement of success. But a candidate represents the personification of IDEAS and it is the ideas that count. I do note the snide bias that constantly creeps into these analyses: ending empire and welfare is considered "too radical". In a world gone or going mad, only the sane appear crazy. Andrew Malcolm shows us this.

[Clevelander]

Ron Paul profers half baked ideas. That is his problem.
Abolish the Fed? Right. And he is as much of an economist as I am a basketball player.
Pull out of Iraq? Right. Let's retreat to fortress USA and see what happens. Worked well last time.
It is easy to propose pie in the sky ideals (I want peace, justice, no taxes, better health care, less crime etc) but only McCain proposes concrete solutions that have a chance to be adopted by Congress and that have a chance to work. Ron Paul is nothing more than a spotlight seeking, frivolous egotist. The enemy to our country is the Democratic party and their leftwing stupidity, disdain for personal responsibilty and/or class jealousy, all of whicht stand a very real chance of being enacted into law. And then what will you Ron Paul supporters do? Move to Mexico? Secede? Kill yourselves?
Get real. Be realistic.

[Joan Wood]

Oh I forgot to mention another very important reason why Ron Paul was never gonig anywhere: our elections are largely rigged and have been so probably at least since the past 40 years. It's no accident that McCain, Clinton and Obama and the only real canddiates at this point - that's because they'lve all been selected by the elites who REALLY run this country. I know this is a bitter pill for people, but really...haven't we seen graphically and openly over the last 2 presidential elections that they are actively rigged? Do people still really have the fantasy that their vote "counts"? There needs to be a major overhauling of all the systems in this country but as the fellow in the movie "Network" said...."First you've got to get MAD".

[Carlos]

I donated 4 different times to Ron Paul's campaign even though I never thought he would win. But America has chosen to elect a professional politician who will continue to drain the economy until we no longer have a middle class. People get the government they deserve, and Americans have proven to deserve what is coming to them.

[Jeffrey]

I could not be happier with the Ron Paul campaign and the amazing success he has had. At the beginning of his candidacy, if you had said he would garner more than 5% of the vote (and often a very higher percentage), people would have laughed in your face. When I first told people I was supporting him, every one, to a person, said, "Who?" Now, they don't. I hope and will work diligently with other like-minded people to move forward with the ideas set forth by Dr. Paul's campaign. Congratulations to the campaign and to everyone supporting it. Fight On!!

[MFCummings]

Dr. Paul started a revolution and this revolution is by no means over. I remember once someone telling me that I must submit to the will of the majority because of something that he termed the "social contract". I've never seen that contract but I do have a copy of the Constitution. We live in a time where our elected representatives freely ignore this constraining document with no fear of judicial oversight. Our representatives have no fear of the electorate either, we just keep sending the same crooks back to Washington over and over again.

We have been brainwashed into believing that government knows better than the individual and the more abstract the governing body, the more they know. The reality is quiet the opposite and yet the former view persists.

We have been brainwashed to believe the current tax system is the only workable system available. I've asked many people how they felt if we abolished the IRS and inevitably they all had the same response, "We can't do that!?" The idea has been ingrained into our very existence, the IRS is somehow synonymous with our survival. Never mind the fact that we survived as a nation without any tax on income for the majority of our history, never mind the fact the tax intake only accounts for less than 40% of total federal receipts, never mind the fact that the assumption from government is that they own us and allow us to keep whatever they deem appropriate. We have been ingrained with the idea that our taxes pay for the goods and services we receive from government, and that is simply not true.

I also believe that we have been conned into thinking that if a man has a D or an R next to his name, that he is either "evil" or "saintly" when history and common sense tells us that neither is true. United we stand. Divided, we continue to vote the same crooks into office for more of that "good time status quo". I no longer believe there is any significant difference between the two branches of the party of government.

Dr. Paul started a revolution and it by no means is over. I will not stop until we have reinstated our lawful, Constitutional government. I am now a precinct committeeman and will soon be a delegate. I have encouraged my friends to do the same. While we have a few remaining rights left, we all need to come together as Americans and change the course of government before it is too late.

[Tomas Engle]

I would say it's less of media conspiracy and more of "clique" among mainstream media networks, much like the one that continually effects academia. Intellectual laziness and fear of real policy change are what drive most MSM, not smoke-filled rooms and secret memos.

I think Dr. Paul didn't catch on with a majority of Americans because they just aren't desperate enough for real change, only for superficial change where there's still the same old policy of inflating your way out of crises and "helping" the world by bombing and occupying it, but instead with a woman or *gasp* a young black man at the helm!

I still think Paul might have a chance at the convention what with some of the delegates yet to be voted, the "uncommitteds" & disaffected Romney/anti-McCain delegates already elected, and Huckabee's ego being inflated by wins that he won't drop out and support McCaiun to be his veep. A slight chance yes, but I will still be out canvassing in my precinct because the main part of Paul's message to supporters was that he is going to basically give the future of his campaign for President wholly over to his grassroots, which have gotten him this far.

I now look very much forward to increased power and activism from the small-l libertarians/classical liberals now within the Republican Party. Already we have a House and a Senate candidate (in New Hampshire and New Jersey, respectively) running in the Republican primary as a "Ron Paul-endorsed Republican", in the hopes of building a Ron Paul Congressional block.

The r3VOLution is only beginning!

[Norm]

I believe I just fiqured out our administrations tactic for preventing terrorismin in our country. Since they keep preaching the terrorist hate us cause were prosperous and free, our goverment is gonna make us pennieless, homeless and inslaved. Vulcan BRILLIANT!

[Brett]

I know you've given some much needed weight, much too late for RP regarding his near media blackout, but Tom Rosenteel, Director of the Center for Excellency in Journalism, vindicated RP and his fans on this on yesterday's NPR Talk of the Nation. He stated that it was unequivocally an objective fact that Ron Paul was censored by the media and that this lack of exposure is why most do not know him and he could not gain popularity. Here is the web site link with the info:

http://www.journalism.org/node/9436

[Janet]

It is heartbreaking to me that the media effectively ignored Dr. Paul's message, but it angers me to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the TV will chose the next President by how it reports. While Dr. Paul's message may be radical, I believe these are radical times. A young person said to me today, "Obama 'speaks' to me when he says on BET, 'what do we get?' My answer to her was, "what do I get"? Bankrupt Social Security, medical insurance costs more than my mortgage, and a war that we cannot win. Dr. Paul's message offered me hope. No other candidate does... they just preach the same old song.. tax/spend, tax/spend. Somewhere we gotta quit taxing and quit spending so we can live.

[Merighe]

I am an avid supporter of Ron Paul's ideas. I was totally convinced that what Ron Paul stands for is the ultimate path to personal freedom and economic prosperity. These tax rebates are a joke, and the same is true for the interest rate cuts which have NOT improved the economy. The truth is that Americans work for the federal government. After we are done paying for our social obligations there is little to nothing left to spend on our own families and future. Ron Paul may lose, whatever, but he has woken me up and now I can teach my children that they will have to fight big government and socialism or they will ive a life of slavery. Big government is slavery, go Ron Paul!!!

[Aron for America]

The Media blacklisted Ron Paul. GE, TIME WARNER, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, DISNEY, THE IRS, THE FED BLACKLISTED RON PAUL, AOL, YAHOO, THE DRUDGE REPORT, OIL COMPANIES BLACKLISTED RON PAUL. You have an agenda backed by billions of dollars and you will certainly not allow anyone to hear any message nor broadcast any message that you do not want people to see or hear. You further continue to separate and hinder the growth of society while programming UNITED STATES CITIZEN'S minds to think as you want them to.

WAKE UP AMERICA, they are tearing us apart. We are strong when we stand together, not separated by lies and the deciet they use to keep us apart. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE POWER, not the politician. FIGHT BACK!!! VOTE RON PAUL! If you don't vote Paul than VOTE OBAMA! Atleast keep McCain and Clinton out of the Whitehouse, these two supremists will destroy our country!

[Gene Trosper]

Why didn't Ron Paul catch on? Because too many of our fellow Americans are addicted to the government teat.

[Perry]

Please realize that this is a struggle over ideas and the direction of our country and party. Ron Paul has said this, and his campaign is trying to educate the American people and bring important but difficult issues and problems into the debate that other candidates would rather not have to talk about. This is a movement and much larger than Ron Paul, presidential candidate.

[V. Adair]

Sorry, you haven't caught on. We are out here-millions strong, but we have been ignored by the media and the republicrats during this campaign. Our numbers are growing and we plan on making this country once more free. Ron Paul may or may not become president - but it's the message that's important - getting the truth out to the masses where the power really is in any society.

[Sally]

Ron Paul's 10.0 "earthquake" hit on Monday, February 11th, 2008 at 11:52 p.m., when his new video was posted at www.ronpaul2008.com .

Tsunami warning to the MSM, the GOP, and the Dems! Get on board or we'll simply go around you!

Even a quick glance at http://www.DailyPaul.com threads will clearly demonstrate the excitement.

RonPaulForums has already created a separate subforum just for the March on Washington:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=89

Become a part of history: http://www.revolutionmarch.com/

[Carlos]

The author of the article above seems so happy that Ron Paul stands no chance to get the nomination. He obviously loves the fact that we are about to elect a candidate who will continue to send billions of dollars to the military dictator in Pakistan. After all, the dictator's lavish lifestyle must be sponsored by somebody.

[Kathie]

I think Ron Paul caught on considering

1. The MSM ignored him
2. Better known candidates would snicker, ridicule and smirk at his answers in the debate detracting from his very gifted and knowledgeable answers
3. His answers to questions could not be answered in the time allotted him in the debates
4. Even C-Span started ignoring him
5. He was better at sound policy than sound bytes

I was one of those precinct leaders who was asked numerous times "why isn't there more information on Ron Paul' from the MSM? They also asked why he didn't have a commercial in every state and I think the original commercial aired in some of the states was not very effective.

[Christina]

I agree with our host that Ron Paul's campaign has relied too much on decentralized grassroots organizations and did not put enough effort into its own publicity. As another commenter said, the internet is a great tool, but when a substantial fraction of voters are older and don't use it, it can't help garner the vote tallies you need.

Personally I wondered why the Paul campaign didn't buy a Super Bowl spot like Obama's campaign did. I also wondered why the massive donation bombs went largely ignored, until our host enlighted me that reporters don't actually report news, they just air canned publicity stunts. I'm sure Ron Paul's campaign staff wished they knew that, instead of relying on some mythic journalistic code to force the news media bear witness for them.

The other reason Paul didn't catch fire, is most Americans have been educated in government schools which teach that government is the solution to all problems. When you have that ingrained in you from youth and reinforced by major media then of course you'd think Ron Paul is an anachronistic kook. They think, "sure George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and John Adams built the country on these ideas, but that was 200 years ago and those ideas have little practical application now."

Count me among those that will write-in Ron Paul this November instead of voting for McCain or the Democratic nominee. If the Republicans lose because of other like me splitting the vote, then I consider that deserved come-uppance fot the neo-conservative bender the GOP has been on the past 7 years.

[Lisa]

I wouldn't have given that money to any other candidate, and I don't regret it one bit. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to support Ron Paul, and at the very least I know I made an effort for the future of my children. If Ron Paul doesn't run again in four years, then I'll hope that someday Rand Paul does (If he's very much like his dad).

God help us if Billary is elected again:( McCain might be just as bad.

[Victor]

We are not quitting in the slightest. The presidency is one goal which we may or may not reach, but the larger goal of having a government that obeys the Constitution will continue and we will not relent. btw. Paul is winning Washington State as the results being published are meaningless straw poll votes.

[Mark Boyles, Spartaburg, SC]

Ron Paul did not do well for the same reason John McCain is.

The MSM pushed John McCain heavily, it explains how a guy with NO money manages to campaign and make a "comeback" from rejection.

Ron Paul had to spend money to run again the MSM. Even when they gave him time, it was primarily to misrepresent him.

Fact is, most voters (my parents for example) are not here on the internet, they are still watching CBS, NBC, and ABC. If the MSM are campaigning against you, you are going to need a LOT of cash.

[patty nottoli]

1. Dr. Paul was smart enough about money to not spend it trying to attract the lamestream media to his campaign, but he paid for it other ways.
2. The Cindy Sheehan-kook-variety of supporters was used by the media to make us look like America-hating traitors, when in reality most of us want out of the war because Bush hasn't won the thing AND it's undeclared AND it's unconstitutional.
3. The media took every solid platform of his, all based on the Constitution, and made it seem absurd and wild-eyed. And the average dim-witted American fell into step with that.
4. Number one reason he isn't number one is: 99% of America has never heard his message.

[Belengadfly]

Duh Hey all you idiots he was a loser from day one. No media conspiracy was required. He never had a snowballs chance in hell, period.

[H. D. Schmidt]

Yes, Ron Paul is the only really true American, speaking for the Founding Fathers. All the rest of Republican aspirants, especially McCain, are nothing but idiotic imperialists who will only add more misery to the USA and the world, to the already missery George W. has created, the one whose hero is Jesus, but speaks no less firy than Hitler each time he opens his mouth. I predict if McCain becomes the next president he will start WWIII. He has already set himself up for such with his commentary about Russia, while China is getting America's secret stuff so it can join Russia in case McCain starts shooting.

[TheGlobalizer]

Re: Why Ron's message didn't catch on.

The issue is, I think, that Ron's message DID catch on, with those who were exposed to it and heard it. Ron's primary method of accessing ears and eyes was through the aggressive internet-based campaign he ran. Also, when able to spend time in state, either through building a campaign machine there (Washington), or through spending time campaigning there (Iowa), his message was heard, appreciated, and endorsed.

To a certain degree, Ron's message can get lost in bouts of "wonkiness" at times (the gold standard is a bit obtuse for most voters, I think), but the underlying principles of liberty, rule of law, and economic stability are those that resonate today.

Put another way, of the people I've discussed the campaign with, those who understood Ron was a serious candidate tended to support his message. Those who did not often did so largely because of the lack of coverage -- people rely on the media to "boil down" the situation for them, and filter off the nonsense. When the race is pitted as "McCain vs. Romney" or "Giuliani vs. Huckabee", it creates a false dichotomy that turns attention away from someone like Ron Paul.

Further, much of the coverage of Ron's campaign was backhanded at best, laced with words like "longshot" and "quixotic" and "fringe". (The Associated Press was one of the worst news sources for loaded descriptors, though even this blog has been guilty of it at times.) In states where coverage of Ron's campaign was largely fair (and actually occurred), Ron did remarkably well. (I was particularly heartened by Seattle Post-Intelligencer's coverage leading up to Saturday's primaries, and by the coverage in Montana.)

I have supported Libertarian candidates (and libertarian Republican candidates) for all of my voting life, and this sort of treatment of libertarian principles is typical of these campaigns. Harry Browne's campaigns in 1996 and 2000 were alternately cast as the "pothead vote" or the "gun-toter vote", simply because they espoused a message of freedom from government tyranny in areas that are not in the current mainstream discourse (drug decriminalization and restoration of the 2nd Amendment).

Put together, there are certainly ways that Ron's campaign could have better communicated its message, but when a candidate is excluded from the dialogue altogether (debates, news stories on the "leading" contenders), it is very difficult to develop the momentum necessary to crack the mainstream consciousness.

Huckabee's rise into the mainstream consciousness is sometimes used as a counterexample, but let's face it, he appeals to a well-understood and underrepresented constituency in this election. Ron's constituency is one that draws from many different demographics, but unites under the common principle of Constitutional liberty. It's a shame that he did not receive legitimate news coverage from the outset.

[idgaf]

Paul doomed himself with his cut and run stratedy about Iraq and his views on terrorism.

[Rhys]

Andrew, Patrck is wrong. Go to the ronpaulforums.com to find out if we support Ron Paul's platform or not.

libertarian... blah blah. more labels out of you folks.

The way I saw it, from canvasing, going door to door, asking people who they thought, most... and I mean most, said "I agree with Ron Paul, but he can't win." or the same thing only "I agree with Ron Paul, but he's never even on the news. How could he win?"

Don't tell me from your newsroom, with all your inside friends (yes, I've been there too, group-think) that you think Ron Paul would be more unpopular if we found out his ideas. That's the same garbage Tucker Carlson was saying. It's the same line Reagen used against commies, "communists read Marx and Lennon, anti-communists understand Marx and Lennon."

Got news for you, Ron Paul supporters understand Ron Paul and agree. SO many people do, it's not funny. To say "libertarianism" is unpopular is more of the same self-fulfilling prophesy we're used to from the media.

Instead of trying to figure out what we'll do and think, just report what's happening and let us get to the doing and thinking. You're not THAT smart.

However, Patrick was right about the campaign being covered like Sports Center. Look at Hardball's "Power Rankings" or I'm just waiting for Fox's Top 10 political plays of the day!

[Stephen Hayes]

I support Ron Paul for a number of reasons. We who do so need to remember that this is not about winning this particular election. It never was about that. Ron is rallying us to a movement to restore liberty and Constitutional government. We should always have been aware of the realities. How many times has Ron said he is amazed at the reaction to his message? His is a voice in the wilderness. None of us should have expected that this was going to turn into huge victory -- certainly not this time. The question for us now is: Are we prepared to stay the course in the face of ridicule and setback? We should have been from the start. It does not matter who is biased or who is ignoring us. It only matters that we be sure we are right and that we stick to our guns, regardless of the outcome. Every one of us knows that the first reaction we get from people is: "Well, you know he can't win." I ask you, what good is winning a mess of pottage? What is the real goal?

We now have to switch gears for the long term effort of changing the hearts and minds of individuals. Our ranks may always be small. We may always feel shut out by the media. But, we should not hang our heads and mope and whine. We either believe in our ideals or we don't.

Am I disappointed? Sure. But not in Ron Paul, not in the message. Paul is encouraged that so many rallied to him. I am disappointed that more did not. But, more will. When the other candidates and winners have ruined this country, we will still have ideals and ideas to offer. They will shoot themselves in their feet. They always do.

Being disappointed is okay. Quitting is not okay.

[Alex]

To Paul folks from a Romney supporter:

I just wanted to let you know why I could never support your man. It is because of his position on the war, pure and simple. I support the war in Iraq regardless of whether it profits me politically. It is an absolute and emphatic nonstarter for me. Paul's libertarian stances on issues aren't all that bad, though.

I want it to be clear that I welcome libertarians in the Republican party. I want you to stay and be an influence. Please.

[boongrant]

If the LA Times already knows about the media 'conspiracy' against Ron Paul, then why don't you report on it? It's no wonder that old media like the LA Times become less relevent every day when they not only miss out on the biggest political story of our time, they actively suppress it! But there's still time; the Ron Paul revolution continues to grow and the convention and general election are many months away. If the LA Times wants to boost circulation, cover Ron Paul! In five or ten years, TVs and newspapers won't even exist anymore. People will watch and read interactive devices everywhere they sit and stand, not just at their desks. The masses will be in total control of their media consumption, and outlets that miss out on the big stories are doomed. Mass communication is dying; niche communication is rising. Which type is the LA Times?