Godlike Productions - Reply to Thread

Users Online Now: 1,753 (Who's On?)	Visitors Today: 572,419
Pageviews Today: 894,939	Threads Today: 355	Posts Today: 4,868
09:54 AM

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject Wash Times: Ron Paul delegate strategy is perfectly legitimate - Awesome article

User Name

Font color: Font:

In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.

[quote:ADEND:MV8xODU3MDcxXzMwOTY2NzE1XzhCMDU1ODFF]
[quote:calin:MV8xODU3MDcxXzU0RjdCODAz]
[b]Ron Paul delegate strategy is perfectly legitimate[/b]

Thursday, May 3, 2012 - Reawakening Liberty by Thomas Mullen

For at least a month, the media have been ignoring compelling evidence that Ron Paul is doing much better in the Republican nomination race than he did in the primary/caucus popular votes. [b]In their hurry to write the general election narrative, the media have forgotten to perform their primary function: to report the facts.[/b] The facts are that Ron Paul has won at least two states and will likely win more.

Now that Paul’s success is impossible to ignore, the media are writing a new narrative. Headlines like “Ron Paul’s stealth state convention takeover” and “Ron Paul People Playing Mischief with Delegates” indicate that instead of ignoring Paul’s victories, they now seek to imply that there is something sneaky or unfair about them. Some even suggest that his delegate success in states where he did not win the popular vote may even (gasp!) “undermine democracy.”
..................

Neither is Paul’s strategy underhanded or “sneaky.” He has made it clear since the beginning of his campaign that he was going to concentrate on the caucus states where he believed that his strong grassroots organization and more devoted following would win him delegates. He predicted his delegate victories in states where he did not win the popular vote months in advance and now those predictions are coming true. How can anyone say that they didn’t know what was going on?

Early in this election cycle, the media repeated ad nauseum that Ron Paul could not win the nomination. That affected his performance in popular votes. They never suggested this about any of the other nine candidates, eight of which are now out. Then, they repeated ad nauseum that Ron Paul had not won any states, even though he had. Now, they attempt to cast aspersions on those wins with spurious arguments about their legitimacy.

Methinks the media doth protest too much. What about Ron Paul are they so afraid of?

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/may/3/ron-paul-delegate-strategy-perfectly-legitimate/
[/quote]

I have to disagree wholeheartedly with the bolded text.  There is no way reporting facts is a primary function of the media.  Their primary function is to sell things and there secondary function is propaganda.  They only occasionally report facts when they find it helps with one of the above or becomes necessary to gain viewers/listeners/readers.
[/quote]

Original Message Ron Paul delegate strategy is perfectly legitimate

Thursday, May 3, 2012 - Reawakening Liberty by Thomas Mullen

For at least a month, the media have been ignoring compelling evidence that Ron Paul is doing much better in the Republican nomination race than he did in the primary/caucus popular votes. In their hurry to write the general election narrative, the media have forgotten to perform their primary function: to report the facts. The facts are that Ron Paul has won at least two states and will likely win more.

Now that Paul’s success is impossible to ignore, the media are writing a new narrative. Headlines like “Ron Paul’s stealth state convention takeover” and “Ron Paul People Playing Mischief with Delegates” indicate that instead of ignoring Paul’s victories, they now seek to imply that there is something sneaky or unfair about them. Some even suggest that his delegate success in states where he did not win the popular vote may even (gasp!) “undermine democracy.”
..................

Neither is Paul’s strategy underhanded or “sneaky.” He has made it clear since the beginning of his campaign that he was going to concentrate on the caucus states where he believed that his strong grassroots organization and more devoted following would win him delegates. He predicted his delegate victories in states where he did not win the popular vote months in advance and now those predictions are coming true. How can anyone say that they didn’t know what was going on?

Early in this election cycle, the media repeated ad nauseum that Ron Paul could not win the nomination. That affected his performance in popular votes. They never suggested this about any of the other nine candidates, eight of which are now out. Then, they repeated ad nauseum that Ron Paul had not won any states, even though he had. Now, they attempt to cast aspersions on those wins with spurious arguments about their legitimacy.

Methinks the media doth protest too much. What about Ron Paul are they so afraid of?

[link to communities.washingtontimes.com]

Pictures (click to insert)





\| Next Page >>