He was also the only one who voted against giving Blair, the Pope and Mother Teresa a medal.
According to his wikipedia page, he did it because “its easy to be generous with other people’s money” and then tried to organise a whip-round.
The Jon Stewart clip linked in the OP is no longer working. (ToS violation) Here’s the clip from the Daily Show’s site:
The Daily Show: Ron Paul & the Top Tier
Yes, and he was evidently wrong about that because the creation of the medal didn’t actually involve spending other people’s money. It was funded by selling commemorative copies. I understand the guy is earnestly committed to his ideology however screwy it is. That being said, it still seems like a dumb vote backed up by dumb reasoning.
As a guy on another forum I frequent said:
“Ron Paul is by far the **least **crazy republican candidate, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t crazy.”
Make up your mind! 
Yet Paul’s second place finish, which put him in front of everybody else, is irrelevant?
I’d say a large part of the reason the media wants to ignore Ron Paul’s finish in the Ames Straw Poll is because it points out how useless the Straw Poll is for anything, and therefore how useless the media is for acting like it matters. Basically, the campaigns throw a bunch of money at a few thousand people in Iowa to bribe them to vote. Then the media analyzes the results as if they’re a a decent stand-in for the levels of support the candidates have and their campaign’s levels of organizational prowess. And often, the results are roughly proportional to those factors. There’s no particular reason that roughly the same proportion of Bachmann supporters and Pawlenty supporters would make it to Ames to vote.
Ron Paul is different. His supporters love to overwhelm any unscientific poll. They love to prove their devotion, to spread his message. The fact that he can get 9,000 or so of them to Ames for the Straw Poll is completely unsurprising to anyone who has read his disciples’ spam everywhere on the internet in the last four years. Still, it’s just 9,000 or so people. It is in no way indicative of his actual level of support (well, I suppose it’s probably the absolute floor for his showing in the Iowa caucuses), which can be found in any scientifically conducted poll. Of course, for the media to report that accurately, they’d pretty much have to fess up to the fact that the Ames Straw Poll is as susceptible to being swarmed by a zealous few as Youtube comments are, and is probably about as useful and newsworthy.
Then they might have to do real work. And that wouldn’t be as much fun.
None of this is to say that Ron Paul does gets a fair shake from the media. But there’s no groundswell of support that the mainstream media is covering up.
You have to be uber conservative to win the primaries. That’s why McCain changed. Paul is libertarian, which is only financially conservative, but socially liberal.
Throw in that he wants to cut military spending, which the past brouhaha with debt ceiling shows the Republicans are unwilling to do, it shows he is definitely not in line with the GOP platform, and thus pretty much cannot win their primary.
I understand that Ron Paul’s newsletter from the early 1990s regularly carried some incendiary racial rhetoric. As the publisher if not the writer, he’s responsible for its broad direction. The Ron Paul political report had all sorts of charming unsubstantiated broadsides against blacks.
Also, Paul’s libertarian principles lead him to oppose the Civil Rights Act. So if a black sits down in your diner, you can call the cops and have him hauled off for trespass in Ron Paul’s world.
And for narrow technical reasons, Ron Paul opposes the Emancipation Proclamation. He wanted a free-market solution to the slavery problem. If I read him correctly, he believes that producers of the widely tradable and fungible commodities of cotton and tobacco would fear labeling requirements and therefore free their slaves. Frankly, the sum total of these positions makes me suspect something beyond tone-deafness.
He also thinks that states should be allowed to establish and ban religion, ban sex acts and contraception, and engage in whatever searches of citizens that they please. (That’s the gist of section 3 of his We the People Act, which he introduces during every Congress.)
So he had other people over the years put many racist statements in newsletters that bear his name and says “Heavens, no! I’m not a racist!” I don’t buy it. One rogue statement by one writer in his newsletter I could chalk up to poor editorial control, but there have been far too many such statements in his newsletters for him to hide behind the “it wasn’t me” skirt.
Paul is a Libertarian and of course he has some strange ideas. But the fact that a Libertarian was able to come in a close second, to Bachmann ,in the poll the news stations covered as very important in the race to the white house, should be a huge story. The election supposedly boosted her electability yet it had no impact on his. He is not getting a fair shake from the news. Even Fox is trying to ignore and downgrade his success. Yet they gave him lots of face time between elections.
While they may have the story wrong, there are reasons to pay attention to Bachmann’s results more than Paul’s. (I agree the straw poll is being absurdly overhyped.) But it’s not just Fox, gonzomax.
That’s pretty fair, I’d say.
But yeah, Paul isn’t getting a fair shake from the media.
Reagan was 73 the second time he was elected. Should I interpret this to mean that we stand a good chance of electing an openly gay president* or that people have learned from Reagan?
*Note: Openly gay president does not equal closeted gay president’s husband whom the Bible gives control over his wife.
OK, seriously? A tad off topic, but 65,000 people decided to watch some dude holding his cell phone up to a TV with the volume down to level 1 rather than just logging into The Daily Show’s website and watching it there?
Bachmann has a better chance of winning the nomination that Ron Paul. We know this because we’ve seen the movie before: it ran in 2008. There is no evidence that Ron Paul has widened his appeal. And last time he came in fourth place with less than 2% of the Republican delegates. Ron Paul’s 15 Minutes Are Up – Mother Jones
To be clear, I personally think the odds of Bachmann’s success are vanishingly small. But unlike Ron Paul, she’s not a septuagenarian and she is running her very first race.
Precisely this. The media’s biggest bias is not right or left, but pro-media. And as every Hollywood sequel demonstrates, it’s easier and more profitable to keep telling the same old stories again and again than to deal with new ones. The media are deeply, deeply invested in a two-party, liberal/conservative divide that is predictable and easily stereotyped. People like Paul make their life more difficult.
She was born in Iowa and lived their until middle school. Do you really think she would have done as well somewhere else? This is a case of local girl makes good, not a reflection on her viability as a candidate.
Ron Paul doesn’t get more support because those who say he can no more win than Kucinich can are correct. There’s not much entertainment value to Paul’s campaign either, so he loses out on even novelty coverage too.
Not that I favor Ron Paul’s campaign, but I did find this article via Drudge Report this morning that seems to support the claim that reflects the OP’s suggestion. However, I’m not completely convinced that the chart is 100% credible as I haven’t done a lick of research to prove/disprove it.
Anyone care to dice this one up?