TIME Magazine Pens Five Page Spread To Convince America Ron Paul Can’t Win

Writer states “Paul isn’t really running for President, at least not entirely.”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Aug 26, 2011

TIME magazine has published a five page spread on Ron Paul’s presidential campaign that hits newsstands today. While some are declaring this a lifting of the veil on media coverage of the Congressman, the reality is that the piece will go out of its way to convince readers that Paul is a fad and has no chance of winning.

Washington Post blogger Erik Wemple today shared a post entitled “News media reverses Ron Paul blackout”, which links directly to a Politico article that contends “Ron Paul scores success in media assault”.

“Paul’s complaints contributed to Time’s decision to do its first major piece on him this campaign season,” the Politico article states.

“He performed strongly at Ames,” Time writer Alex Altman told Politico. “I thought, and my editors think, that he had a valid complaint that he was being overlooked.”

On the surface this sounds great from a Ron Paul follower’s point of view, however, it quickly becomes clear from reading Altman’s blog that the Time piece represents a continuation of the desperate establishment attempt to convince voters that Ron Paul does not have a snowflake’s chance in hell.

In his explanation of the upcoming Time piece, Altman opines, “Paul is probably not a credible contender for the nomination,” attempting to convince readers that his ideology and policies do not resonate with voters.

“His foreign policy of nonintervention is a nonstarter among neoconservatives. His view that social issues like abortion and gay marriage should be left up to the states causes social conservatives to blanch,” writes Altman.

“He’s a fiscal conservative, but his crusade for commodity-backed money and warnings about the looming dangers of hyperinflation aren’t exactly simpatico with deficit hawks’ concerns.” the piece continues. “At 76, his age could be a factor, and he hasn’t shaken the fringe rep he was tagged with in 2008. “Ron Paul is not going to be President of the United States,” conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer said recently.”

So Paul’s ideas do not resonate? One commenter puts Altman’s claims into perspective:

Ron Paul can’t win because he appeals to traditional conservatives who believe in small government, to leftists who believe in personal liberty, to ‘blue’ democrats who believe Obama has betrayed the party, to independents who voted for Obama but are disgusted with the Hopey-Changy that never happened, by gays who don’t want government dictating marriage rules, by straights who don’t want to be forced to live by a ‘gay agenda’. Gee…left, right, young, old, conservative, liberal, gay, straight…with all that support, he doesn’t have a chance!

Altman then takes a leap into Orwellian territory by suggesting that “Paul isn’t really running for President, at least not entirely.”

Last time I checked, Paul was placed third in Gallup’s national presidential preference poll, and is running at an almost dead heat with Obama in the popularity stakes.

It has been an average week as far as Ron Paul appearances on the news networks are concerned. He’s been on CNN a couple of times, Fox News a couple of times and appeared on CNBC also. There have also been more print media stories this week, primarily, and rather paradoxically, reporting the fact that the media is not covering Ron Paul.

So the fact is that Ron Paul is no longer being completely ignored by the media. However, as Time has made it all too obvious, he is still being marginalized and ridiculed.

When the time is right for them, the media will simply ignore Paul again – this is the stark reality that the Congressman’s campaign and his followers have to deal with and overcome.

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Favorite

3 members favorited this

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 Social Network to add comments!

Join 12160 Social Network

Comment by The Anti-Bush on August 28, 2011 at 4:59am

@KRYPKE: I actually agree with his thoughts on currency, even though it does have a few problems (the dollar suddenly becoming a hard currency would clearly result in the other currencies crashing - which could be a huge problem as long as import and export exist).

The things I disagree with are primarily:

His tendency to want to abolish regulation of big business - e.g. abolishing the EPA, or weakening antitrust laws - I don't trust big government, but I don't trust big business either, if greedy criminals like Exxon-Mobil go unregulated, they will end up destroying the world (it's not like they haven't shown that already, with all the accidents they caused already by not implementing all thinkable safety measures simply to make even more profit)
His idea of abolishing the department of education - education is important, and it is vital that a decent education is accessible even to the poor, it's their only hope of getting out of their poverty
His idea of cutting down social programs. In an ideal world, this would work because people would just help each other voluntarily (and Paul has a track record of treating poor people for free, so in a world where everyone is like him, it would work) -- but in the real world, the rich who could afford helping the needy tend to be greedy scumbags who actually like to see the poor dying.

That said, I think that Paul is a reasonable person, and he'd see when some of his policies aren't working out, and he'd do what he can to fix it.

Comment by Cryptocurrency on August 27, 2011 at 2:17pm: I hear ya Anti-B. Paul is the only candidate representing main street, that much we can bank on. As far as his monetary policies and economic outlook, Dr. Paul advocated for sound money and an alternative to the fiat funny money the FED clowns create.

People have this idea that it will be backed simply by a "gold standard" which is illogical therefore they do not understand commodity backed currency. A gold standard would be a a "hard currency" much like Andrew Jackson establishing through executive order the Second Bank of America.

Technically you could back up a currency with, say, hemp, if you wanted to. Anything uniform in quality produced in large quantities could be a piece of the portfolio of a commodity based currency.

Comment by The Anti-Bush on August 27, 2011 at 11:43am: Ron Paul is very much electable.

While he would certainly cost his party some votes (he clearly wouldn't get the votes of the likes of Cheney or Bush), he'd make it up by getting numerous votes from people who would never support any of the "normal" Republican candidates.

I'm an Independent myself - one who has never voted Republican so far. I think Obama is a disaster, but only almost as bad as Bush. The likes of Perry and Bachmann scream out "just as bad as Bush" to me - they're addicted to war and repression.

Ron Paul, however, would change all that. While I disagree with him on many issues (I don't think the Laissez-Faire economy he's envisioning can work with evil big corporations that are already out of control while there's some regulation), he's the one who truly wants to restore freedom and end the wars. Those 2 issues are the most important things facing us today.

He has my support - and probably not just mine, but also the support of the entire "we could only HOPE he'd CHANGE things" crowd on the left.