Media Blackout

I'm not sure where or when it happened, whether it is a concerted effort or independently decided by every nearly major news organization in the USA, and I'm not sure how far it goes or exactly why it exists, but there is a media blackout on Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. I didn't want to believe it when Paul rarely got coverage after Iowa and New Hampshire, but after Michigan, I'm beginning to really believe this exists. The problem with such a theory is that it is so hard to prove. I don't have access to memos or emails that go out to journalists or editors saying "Do not report on Ron Paul." This makes it very easy for anyone to dismiss the idea as completely conspiratorial.

But, don't take my word for it. Look through the recent articles about the GOP race for oneself.

The problem exists in both TV and print. If a reference at all is made, it is usually just a name with a number beside it (indicating the primary results or the latest polling data) or a negative blog under a major organization that lacks fact and merit. No editorializing of Ron Paul takes place, no statement from him or his campaign, no question about it really.

Take the recent opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal as an example. It discusses the "jumbled GOP" after the results of the MI primary. The Wall Street Journal's article "No Standard Bearer" (Jan 16, 2008) even goes so far as to claim that Giuliani and Thompson were winners after Michigan because of the fact that there is no clear frontrunner.

Wall Street Journal:

The candidates now head into Saturday's South Carolina primary for what can only be called a free-for-all. Rudy Giuliani is delighted, because the lack of a clear frontrunner means the race might still be jumbled on January 29 in Florida, where he has staked his claim.

Another winner yesterday was Fred Thompson, who is competitive in South Carolina and is running as the conservative who can unite the GOP's fractious wings. The former Tennessee Senator has laid out an impressive policy map, but he's suffered in early contests because his heart and energy didn't seem to be in the race.

Not even a mention of Ron Paul despite the fact that Paul beat both Fred and Rudy quite heartily. Despite the fact that Rudy Giuliani has yet to show any major competitive threat to Romney, McCain and Huckabee in the primaries thusfar, he is still talked about as if he is a major player in this election. Granted, his Florida strategy buys him time before serious scrutiny will take place, but now, after losing an enormous primary (one that name recognition alone should have brought him in higher than Thompson), why do all these media outlets suddenly act as if Giuliani could still really show up in Florida? I think he could........but only with the media's help. Be prepared for talk of how Giuliani is polling high in Florida (even though the polls before MI had him lock-stepping with McCain and Huckabee coming up fast); be prepared for the media that so richly criticized Rudy's original plan to start to talk a little about the cleverness of it; be prepared for Rudy to be talked about more and more, the closer we get to Florida. Prepare for little to no mention of Ron Paul, even if he comes in 4th in South Carolina. And before you know it, Rudy does well in Florida.

No one is willing to admit the truth about Rudy Giuliani and his campaign. Rudy Giuliani is a Fringe Candidate! His name is losing its value faster than the US Dollar, he has yet to garner even 50,000 votes from over 1.1 million voters so far nationally (which is only 4 %), and yet he always finds a way to creep into any media outlet.

Here's the real score so far....

Current National Tally
1. Mitt Romney = 443,139 (38.88 %)
2. John McCain = 299,848 (26.31 %)
3. Mike Huckabee = 207,308 (18.19 %)
4. Ron Paul = 84,554 (7.42 %)
5. Fred Thompson = 50,925 (4.46 %)
6. Rudy Giuliani = 49,198 (4.31 %)
7. Duncan Hunter = 4,567 (0.4 %)
= 1,139,539 Votes in total in 2 GOP Primaries & 1 Caucus

In fact, to make matters worse, there are several instances of incorrect figures from the Michigan primaries finding their way into graphs and stats from major news organizations.

Lou Dobbs talks about how all the presidential candidates - Democrat and Republican - fail to address important issues head-on, like the War in Iraq, Immigration, and the looming economic crisis. Ron Paul has hardly been silent on any of those three issues. The only candidate not filling the debates with more patriotic rhetoric.

New York Times tries to indicate by their scorecard of election results that it is a five-way race, despite Thompson and Giuliani having zero affirmed delegates. In this case where there is a "tie" for last place, perhaps alphabetical order may be a good organizing principle; also, there is popular vote. Adding the votes from all the primaries held thusfar, Ron Paul comes in 4th, in front of Thompson 5th, and Giuliani 6th.

Boston Globe - Front Page Graph says Ron Paul came in 5th place at 4% behind Thompson's 6%, which is completely inaccurate. Those figures should be reversed. No mention of Ron Paul in the article either, but reference made to both Fred and Rudy. The graph an honest mistake? Perhaps. But its a mistake that shouldn't have happened and one the paper can easily sweep aside.

Fox News Main Website around 10:00 am this morning. Pictures of 5 candidates. 2 of which did quite poorly in Michigan. One who came in fourth in Michigan and is surprisingly absent. Notice the ironic "Inflation Alert" right above it: ironic both in that Fox is inflating the horse race into something it is not and in that Ron Paul is the only candidate to really bring up the problems inflation is having on the US economy.

But, then again, there are a few rays of hope in Ron Paul's recent media coverage:
Charleston City Paper editorial about Ron Paul being the Johnny Cash of American Politics.

The Los Angeles Times blog talks about Ron Paul beating both Giuliani and Thompson....again. (L.A. Times has been by and large more fair in their coverage of Paul, from what I've seen. Good for them.)

The Arab American News gave its endorsements to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich prior to the Michigan Primary and has consistently had better coverage of Ron Paul and the election in general than the mainstream media.

As one final nail in the coffin of mainstream media coverage, its a shame that one has to leave the country of the election to find decent coverage of a candidate like Ron Paul. Here's a story from Russian Television:

Michigan Primary

These are the official numbers from the Michigan Primary on January 15, 2008.

Michigan GOP Primary
1. Mitt Romney = 337,847 (38.9 %)
2. John McCain = 257,521 (29.7 %)
3. Mike Huckabee = 139,699 (16.1 %)

4. Ron Paul = 54,434 (6.3 %)
5. Fred Thompson = 32,135 (3.7 %)
6. Rudy Giuliani = 24,706 (2.8 %)
7. Uncommited = 18,106 (2.1 %)
8. Duncan Hunter = 2,823 (0.3 %)
9. Tom Tancredo (Dropped out of race) = 458 (0.1 %)
10. Others = 354 (0.0 %)


Michigan DNC Primary
1. Hillary Rodham Clinton = 328,151 (55.3 %)
2. Uncommitted = 237,762 (40.0 %)

3. Dennis J. Kucinich = 21,708 (3.7 %)
4. Christopher J. Dodd (dropped out of race) = 3,853 (0.6 %)
5. Mike Gravel = 2,363 (0.4 %)

Interesting to note that Kucinich is 3,000 votes short of tying with Rudy Giuliani's number. Ron Paul comes in 4th place ahead of Thompson and Giuliani. Romney is still in the race thanks to a first place finish and the GOP ticket is now split pretty heavily moving into South Carolina, Nevada and Florida.

Ron Paul in South Carolina

Ron Paul gets to defend his case, even on Fox News, in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina - January 10, 2008.

The State of Things

Rasmussen's polling data for January 11, 2008 gives McCain the national edge.
GOP Candidates' National Standing:
John McCain = 22%
Mitt Romney = 20%
Mike Huckabee = 20%
Fred Thompson = 11%
Rudy Giuliani = 9%
Ron Paul = 3%

NEEDS
Michigan is the first big test for these guys. Both McCain and Romney desperately need Michigan. If McCain loses Michigan he is seriously hurt; if Romney loses Michigan, he is finished. Before New Hampshire, Huckabee was showing strength in the Michigan polls. Now I'm sure McCain and Huckabee and Romney will be battling for the top spots.

Thompson needs a strong showing in South Carolina. Just like Mitt in Michigan, Fred has gone in all-or-nothing in SC. Losing it will devastate his campaign. I think even coming in second will not be enough to salvage his campaign. His bottom line is money. I'm doubtful that with a first place win in South Carolina that Thompson could compete nationally, which is what Super Tuesday is all about.

Giuliani needs to stop getting 5th or 6th and prove that he has some support somewhere besides New York, New Jersey and Florida. Third in Michigan will be his only real way to stay competitive come Florida and Super Tuesday. The thing so many people are beginning to realize about Giuliani is the fact that he wasn't running on much more than name recognition. Many poll-watcher Republicans would support him begrudgingly if he was the easy frontrunner, but with a split race and more options, Republicans are deciding anyone but Giuliani. If he does not get third in Michigan (which will lead to him not getting first in Florida) he will drop out after Super Tuesday.

Ron Paul needs to show some competitive edge in Michigan and South Carolina. Fifth is not enough! Beating Giuliani was good in Iowa, but it only showed that he was less of a longshot than they had originally thought. Many still see him as an extreme longshot. The smart thing about Ron Paul's campaign is that he is running a national campaign. He understands the importance of Super Tuesday and is in a better place financially to compete on Super Tuesday if some candidates drop out before February 5. Thompson and Romney are primed to do it. Hopefully they will. Plus, Paul really needs to win a state or come in a strong second or third. Nevada is a good state for Paul to take and coming in strong in South Carolina or Michigan could change the entire national perception of his "electability."

POSSIBLE SPOILERS (or unintended consequences)
A possible unique facet of the Michigan GOP race is the fact that the Democrats have no delegates to award. Obama, Edwards and (pre-drop out) Richardson had their names removed from the Democratic primary ballot. And they say voting third party is wasting your vote! Anyone who votes in the Democratic primary is literally wasting their vote because it will hold no sway in the awarding of delegates which is what the primaries are all about. As a result, many Democrats in Michigan will not vote. A few will go out and vote a vote of confidence for their candidate (expect Kucinich to do the best he's ever done); others will not have gotten the memo and go out and vote anyway. Hillary will win Michigan but it won't mean anything.

What I am hopeful will happen is that many Democrats will come out and vote as Republicans. This could result in a sabotage (or slight sabotage) of the GOP primary by Democrats voting for a candidate that they either can agree with on a few key issues (Ron Paul) or voting for a candidate they believe they can beat in a general election (Huckabee) or voting for a longshot Republican to shake up the race a lot more (Hunter). I would say that the candidates who have the most to lose by Democratic GOP voting will be Romney, McCain and Thompson. McCain could be a tossup.

Democratic voting in the GOP race may not happen or not have any noticeable effect at all. And it may happen on such a broad scale that it just adds a fairly even number of votes across the span of GOP candidates. I'm sure many Kucinich voters will still head out to show their support for the underdog. Judging from voter turnout to past Democratic Primaries, I don't know that Michigan Democrats are motivated to get out and vote to sabotage the Republican Primary, if at all. That's why this will remain as speculation on my part until I see that there are a great deal more than 1,250,000 voters who turn out for the GOP Primary.

As the Cost of Wiretaps Rises....

Setting a example American overspenders should be wary of, telephone companies decided to drop FBI wiretaps because the Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to pay for the phone bills. Finally, an example we can follow. The government is in a little better state than the American people, however. At least the government can always print more money if they need it; we still have to charge a credit card for our wiretaps.

An Almost Week in the Desert

A Lot Like Sports, Only More Dirty

You ever wonder why the newspaper endorsements that presidential candidates get only seem to happen to a handful of candidates? Here's why!

Apparently newspapers want to interview all presidential candidates for a possible endorsement: only qualified candidates need apply, of course. They don't even invite the guys who don't matter because they want to help control your perception of this election. Not to be unfair: those longshots are sure welcome to stop by if they're in the area, though. Fair? Who said anything about fair? This is about informing the populous. If you include equal time for ALL the candidates, it just gets confusing. Too much for the average joe to sort through. We somehow got him reading a paper! Do we really need him to be reading about Mike Gravel too?

Old Guard GOPer's and Ron Paul

Judging by the exit polls conducted by CNN for both Iowa and New Hampshire, 40-60 year old Republicans have yet to be won over to the Ron Paul bandwagon. While a younger audience shows a desire to connect with the message of a speaker over their chances of winning and even to the point of becoming involved with a grassroots revolution to see the message get out, the old guard baby boomers say they want a revolution......well, you know, we all want to change the world.

Many of the 40-60 market are frustrated and annoyed, fighting indifference to support the "lesser of two evils" -- the problem is, they also pride themselves on having a sense of reality and reasonability. They want change only if change has a chance. They may agree with Ron Paul's free market health care solutions, but what if Paul can't get the GOP nomination and they failed to help pick a "real frontrunner" and unify the party to eventually defeat a Democrat who seeks to implement a dangerous universal health care plan? Then where would they be?

There is a strong conglomeration of Issues and Electability in the average party goer's mind. It doesn't help that mainstream media tries to streamline the party's candidates as quickly as possible through name recognition polling early in the process, which leads to perceptions of frontrunner status in the middle of the process through further polling and then finally selective reporting all throughout but particularly toward the end of the process to help buffet the perception of electability which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Smear campaigns and televised debates are a whole other matter that play into the candidate's likability.

It is my contention that if Ron Paul wants to win the election by increasing his electability, he obviously needs to win or show a viable candidacy in the primaries, but more importantly, he needs to win over the people who are the bleeding heart and corrupted soul of the party.....if he can. There are many mainstream Republican voters out there who don't like the options they've been given. What they mean is they don't like Rudy, McCain, Romney or Huckabee. Thompson maybe. Duncan Hunter has absolutely no chance and Ron Paul is a longshot too with some possibly troublesome libertarian aspects to his platform.

The biggest irony of this whole thing is the mainstream voters demand more of a detailed explanation of practical policy and theory before they can feel comfortable voting for a supposed party dissident (connecting to the historical party helps only insofar as you can play into Reagan's iconography). How can you just get rid of established government institutions? How do you just end involvement in a foreign conflict? How do you just stop spending money or cut taxes? They will continue to buy into McCain's 100 years war because he seems to have a more practical approach to the matter. "What happens when we leave?" he says. It isn't detailed nor does it give one an understanding of practical policy. But no one will call McCain on it. It just plays into an averagely informed American viewpoint of a war none of the mainstream will ever really see. Of course, the great unasked question is "what happens if we stay?"

How the Wyoming Caucus Really Works

Detailed Explanation of how the Wyoming Caucuses work.
Condensed Explanation of how the Wyoming Caucuses work.
"The way it will work is that the county chair will ask any registered Republican to write their name on a blackboard, and next to that which candidate they would support," says Tom Sansonetti, the 2008 Republican County Convention Coordinator. "There may be multiple potential delegates for each candidate, or just one, or none. Then they address the delegates and say why they support the candidate they support. And then they vote, and keep voting until someone gets 50 percent plus one." They knock off the potential delegate who came in last each time.

There are 12 Delegates and 12 Alternates. A candidate winning Alternates may be benefitted in the long run even if the "polls" indicate that another candidate has the delegates. That's why the media does not care about Wyoming and why none of the candidates rushed out to Wyoming after Iowa.

According to Lew Rockwell:
The Wyoming county conventions were NOT open to Republican voters. Eligible delegates consisted of only two groups: Republican party officials who were elected in 2006; and delegates who were appointed (by established precinct organizations) to fill empty delegate seats.

Wyoming GOP Caucus

There are 12 delegates at stake in Wyoming today for the Republican presidential candidates.  Wyoming originally had 28 delegates but because of the push to move Wyoming's caucus date forward (before February 5) the state has been penalized and lost half of their delegates.  The remaining 2 delegates were already chosen at a party convention back in May.

The press is speaking occasionally about Wyoming but not much.  It has a very confusing and convoluted caucus system.  Back in mid-December, caucuses were held to determine the delegates who would then caucus today (January 5) to determine the delegates who shall cast their votes for GOP candidates at the convention.  I think.  To further cloud matters, some delegates are "true delegates" and some are alternate delegates.  I am not sure if an alternate holds less sway or voting power than a delegate.

Every indication I have seen -- the GOP straw polls, organized campaigns in the state -- it looks like a pretty easy win for Mitt Romney.  He has strong support, especially in Teton County and in Mormon communities in the state.  He has an organized campaign in the state and has had supporters showing up to caucus.  However, there is also a strong movement of Ron Paul supporters in the state.  It seems to be a matter of who participated in the caucuses back in December which will help color who is selected as a delegate today.

Seeing as Romney has already garnered 5 delegates and Hunter 1 (meaning half of the counties are accounted for), my Predictions may be instantly outdated before I even post this online.  I still think Paul and Thompson will find some support.

My Wyoming GOP Predictions:

Mitt Romney - 6 Delegates (50 %)

Ron Paul - 3 Delegates (25 %)

Fred Thompson - 2 Delegates (16.5 %)

Duncan Hunter - 1 Delegate (8.5 %)

If Ron Paul does not get any delegates in Wyoming it wouldn't be the end of the world for his campaign.  But, if Huckabee somehow could garner more support than Ron Paul, there could be trouble.  The West is where Ron Paul's numbers are the strongest and Huckabee's are the weakest.  If the tide changes, there will be a good deal of ground for the Paul campaign to make up.

For more information: Wyoming GOP

In Pursuit of Happiness, Vol. 1

In Pursuit of Happiness:
A Photographic Collage of Current Events and Interesting Photos



A New Orleans resident finds food in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.



“Well Todd, now that you've accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, why don't you meet the guy?”



President Bush personally thanks Christian conservatives for their unerring support.


----------------------------------------
Irrelevant Magazine
"All the faux-news not fit for print."
----------------------------------------

Hyperbole Awareness Month

Irrelevant Magazine Celebrates “Hyperbole Awareness Month”
Hyperbole (hy·per·bo·le): extravagant exaggeration (as "mile-high ice-cream cones")


Every hour…
Someone says something funny that is misunderstood.

Every day…
At least 25 people will be thought of negatively for using clever hyperbole.

Every week…
A cross is burned.

The 20th Century saw major progress in outlawing discrimination against hyperbolists (users of hyperbole), and most Americans today support integrated schools and neighborhoods. But misunderstandings and stereotypes persist, an atmosphere often exploited by hyperbolic hate groups. Spread on the Internet and accessible by personal computers, hyperbole clearly knows no geographic bounds…yet it is not always appreciated.


Mark and Tina Lumpkin show off their "Fruity Flutes"
as part of a Hyperbolic Pride 2005 Celebration.

Clearly, there is a cancer spreading across the land, an aching, divisive cancer that is claiming the thought-lives of literally millions of people everyday. That cancer has a name: Hyperbolic Indifference.

This year, Irrelevant Magazine is reaching out to men and women with several key messages, most notably, the importance of early detection of hyperbole through human reasoning and the physical appreciation of the hyperbolic reference through laughter and smiling. Hyperbolic Readings are a person's best chance for detecting hyperbole early. When coupled with new treatment options, Hyperbolic Readings can significantly improve a person's chances of survival and enjoyment.

Come, celebrate hyperbole with us and help make the world safe for the usage and appreciation of hyperbole and extravagant exaggerations.


----------------------------------------
Irrelevant Magazine
"All the faux-news not fit for print."
----------------------------------------

Nashville Remembers 9/11

Country Musicians “Remember the Day the Towers Fell”

On the fourth anniversary of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center falling to the earth after terrorists strategically flew airplanes into them, country radio stations around the United States are remembering the event by playing their entire arsenal of contemporary country classics. “Basically anything that references ‘Americans’, ‘towers falling’, ‘Osama Bin Laden’, ‘flags flying high’, ‘billowing smoke’, or ‘firefighters pulling children for the rubble’ will be put on our playlist for the day,” said Artie B. Blank, also known as DJ Billy Blank: “the madman of the airwaves.” “Hearing those touching, patriotic lyrics backed by full Nashville production, complete with pedal steel [guitar] and the rising final chorus…it's really something to hear.” When asked if country songs referencing 9/11 were in poor taste Blank replied, “this is the heart and soul of America, this music. It is our chance to give something back. We love it and we love America. If that's a problem for some people, they can hop on a boat with their [picket] signs and go back to France where they came from.”


----------------------------------------
Irrelevant Magazine
"All the faux-news not fit for print."
----------------------------------------

Hurricane Refuses to Hit Land

Meteorologists Insist Hurricane Will Hit U.S.

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- Over 250 miles off the coast of South Carolina a category 1 Hurricane is waiting to make land fall...or, so says every meteorologist watching the storm. Hurricane Ophelia has been following along the coast of Florida over the past week, threatening to hit land before veering out to sea where it continues to follow a northeastern trajectory. It appears the hurricane is moving out of harm's way, but meteorologists are not so quick to celebrate.


Meteorlogists project that Hurricane Ophelia will make landfall, despite the storm's current trajectory.

"All of our computer models and our gut instinct say it is going to do a 180 [degree turn] and hit land. The only variant as to where it will hit is how long it waits before turning around," said Douglas Black, an armchair meteorologist who has been following the storm intently from the basement of his Jacksonville, FL home. Black has been monitoring the storm since it threatened to sweep up Florida's Atlantic coastline earlier last week. "I'm going to be disappointed if it just peters out into the Atlantic like a big category 1 letdown. It's not even strengthening, which is sad. Of course, after the excitement of [Hurricane] Katrina, everything will look a little pale in comparison."

Professional meteorologists express similar concern, although specifically point out that they do not wish Ophelia to make landfall on the Eastern Seaboard, lest they suffer lawsuits. "It's not so much a desire to see the storm hit land as it is a knowledge that despite a storm's current path, it can change," says Jacob Northrip, a spokesperson for the National Weather Service, "it can act all cool and calm and then turn around just like that and be crazy like one of those...those shows, those cop shows where the cops chase the guys who get out of their cars running through people's yards and get tackled and sent off to jail and get caught on tape the whole time. It's kind of like that. You never can tell with them. One minute she's over here yelling and howling and then the next minute – ‘hey, look...I'm over here, big boy! Watch me hit this little town and cause social turmoil and flooding!’ Completely unpredictable! They really are magnificent weather systems."


----------------------------------------
Irrelevant Magazine
"All the faux-news not fit for print."
----------------------------------------