You are savvy to the ways of the media and the politics of personal destruction.
Don't you think the **** like wedding cakes is a deliberate diversion to pull the attention away from the things that do matter like corruption, deception, fraud, graft, cover ups, extortion, and/or incompetence? I can start a dozen threads on things that really matter and such threads at most attract a few tepid responses and usually die an early death. But post something dumb Sarah Palin said or even casually mention that gay wedding cake in passing, and we're off the races for pages and pages and days and days.
What makes this pertinent to this thread topic, is that Rand Paul is not going to be allowed to really discuss his point of view or what he can offer to the debate. Nobody is. There will always be something else to draw the media attention and the national discussion.
Cool, with Polgara's support, he's got a leg in.
not at all...
there is no deliberate attempt to shift focus away from anything by the outlets or even the individual reporters. they are merely tracking reaction on the hot button issue of today, tomorrow it will be something else, another race based shooing perhaps. Not to say that this reporting has been ethical as it has not.
It is though, a diversion, just not deliberate. In the 80's I saw our newscast becoming more and more fluff, they even had me cover the new "Jaquita Banana Girl" which I turned into a women's rights issue, (**** you editors, I report what I see and you can't stop me!) It was dying in this sea of pretty people with good hair and expensive teeth and the brains of a lizard. It has not changed but worsened, news in the US today is diversion. You have grown too cynical too even care about "If you like your plan...", too hardened to really want to hear about another congressman, slush funds or young boys. "Celebrity news" is a diversion not news, as are movie reviews and the great one, what all networks now love of is "opinion"..it is so much easier to be told what to think than have to parse out what all this crap means and who is "right" in a vortex of greys.
The senior Paul was ignored in what I found to be the greatest display of editorial by silence ever generated. Here, we have fringe candidates and they are a wonderful diversion, they get more air because of their "uniqueness". We invented a legal party called the "Rhinocerous Party" whose platform was to hold a party if elected. At the time, we as journalists, were called to debate whether and how much air we should give these "clowns" until it was pointed out that "clown" was an opinion and we were not in the opinion but fact business and the facts were they were a legal party, had things to say on the issues of the day, therefore had to include them where relevant, the fact they were side splitting funny was "opinion" ......and we still stick to that story.
Sarah Palin, Rand and his dad are lightening rods for the extreme left, meaning not necessarily in ideology but in attitude. They are "low hanging fruit" like the whacked out old uncle we all had to make fun of behind his back. Easy targets for rebuke through deliberate misunderstanding in a weirdness than equates an individual with a nation of ideology.
This Paul will not be ignored, considering what the show the other side appears to be assembling. Months and months of Hillary and Hillary and more Hillary is going to need some distraction...and so your media will go looking for a substitute for a Rhino party. The unintended consequences will be greater numbers in Republican ranks.
This Paul will not be ignored
A vote for Huntsman wouldn't be a vote against. It would be for.
I can't say yet that a vote for Rand Paul would be a vote against. I'm keeping an open mind about him. I just know that hell will freeze over before I would consider voting for either Hillary or Biden.
Why... would you vote for Huntsman???? /boggle
I may vote for him just to piss people off.
For the same reasons I voted for him in 2012. Love the guy.
Yeah, they didn't show the same for his dad when he ran against Romney too. Okay.....whatever, now all can see how you are a GOP insider. :roll:
Rand Paul strikes me as more of politician then his father, and that concerns me. Politicians say what they think you want to hear.
with that said, who else is saying what I want to hear in regards to the NSA, foreign policy, and sensible spending?
Gary Johnson I guess.
I'm 50-50 on the need for a governor as President.
Kasich is the best one to me from the GOP.
Gov. Sandoval would bring much to the table as a VP--bringing along NV, CO, and even NM--the southwest gambit.
But with foreign policy so big right now, Rubio makes more sense to the GOP as VP--Florida/Hispanics.
Not to me on Rubio--Kerry humiliated him at his last committee hearing.
I just saw a hit ad against Rand Paul from dark GOP money.
Money aligned with the 'swift boaters' Veterans for truth.
And then there's Lindsay Graham's slams on Rand Paul .
Rand Paul strikes me as more of politician then his father, and that concerns me. Politicians say what they think you want to hear.
with that said, who else is saying what I want to hear in regards to the NSA, foreign policy, and sensible spending?
Gary Johnson I guess.
Absolutely he is, which is why he has so much light between himself and his dad now, that he's lost much of that early support, but gained more elsewhere, I'm sure. But just like his dad, who the monopolistic GOP fenced out, he wins most straw polls, but unlike his dad, he's shown himself willing to say what the GOP wants to hear, something his father wouldn't do. So yeah, he became a problem, not the fix.
For the same reasons I voted for him in 2012. Love the guy.
What's the chance his dad would be his running mate?
It's petty, but Huntsman's big problem in 2011/12, in my opinion, was his linkage to Obama as the Ambassador to China. Christie has a similar taint, related to the Hurricane Sandy photo ops. Politics can be funny that way and little things can kill a national campaign. Huntsman was and is a rational, well spoken, reasoned individual, but I don't see him getting back in this time around. He wouldn't be a bad VP pick, however - Romney would have done better with him than Ryan.
so what problem did Ron Paul fix?
I don't know about that. Ryan can be very endearing while Huntsman may be a really good man, but he doesn't have a lot of charisma, on TV anyway, or have all that much track record to back him up. He has been somewhat wishy washy on a few issues, and he definitely indicates some neocon tendencies that cause me to raise eyebrows a bit. After some further experience with him and knowing more about him, I might think he really is the one. But at this point he is still a question mark to me.
But then I'm a little leery of Rand Paul too for different reasons but at this point I'm trying to keep an open mind and all options open.
That's good. I don't think I'll be voting for him but I'll listen to what he has to say. He'll be spending a lot of time here so I'll get to meet him hopefully soon.
Good evening AO - hope all is well with you. My impression of Paul Ryan in the 2012 election was that he was the junior understudy of the CEO, Romney, and not ready for the executive suite. He and Romney seemed too business oriented, even though Ryan has basically been a politician all his adult life. I didn't think he did that well in the VP debate with Biden - he looked shaky. Perhaps Huntsman would have been no better, but Huntsman at least had experience as a governor and experience internationally/diplomatically.
The problem with Romney and Ryan was that their answer to just about everything was either:
A) We'll bomb it.
B) We don't know, but we'll form a committee to figure it out after you elect us.
Answer B was the CEO talking. We don't need a President who can't think for himself or plot out his own ideas.