



« Trent Lott's always good for a hit | Latest postings | Cheney: Having a blast in Baghdad » Originally posted: May 9, 2007

Ron Paul has (remote) chance at White House Posted by Frank James at 9:44 am CDT We received a number of comments from readers who noted that we didn't have a link for Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) along with the other presidential candidates. We have fixed that oversight and we regret that it occurred. It was an oversight, nothing more. It definitely wasn't an intentional editorial decision by this part of the MSM to not give coverage to the libertarian candidate. With his opposition to the Iraq War and concerns about the downside of the war on terror on Americans' civil rights Paul has clearly resonated with many Americans who may have seen him for the first time at last week's Republican presidential candidates' debate at the Reagan Presidential Library. It's reminiscent of the spike in interest that happened on the Democratic presidential side with Mike Gravel, the former Democratic senator from Alaska. Paul's website reports its hits tripled after the debate and goes so far as declaring Paul the debate's winner. Based on all the increased interest in him, that may be. Whether it will be enough to significantly lift his poll ratings remains to be seen. The latest CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted from May 4 to 6 had him at one percent. I suppose if he goes to two percent that would be trumpeted by some as a 100 percent increase. The hard political reality is that Paul is the longest of long shots. It takes an amount equal to the treasury of a small nation to win a major party presidential nomination and then go on to wage a credible general-election campaign. It also takes being where the ideological center of gravity is in the party. Paul is nowhere near that center. All of which doesn't mean it's impossible for Paul to get his party's nomination. Sure he has a statistical chance that's probably better than being hit by a meteor but still fairly remote.

in Congress, Swamp Note, White House 2008 | Permalink Comments Are there REALLY Democrats clamoring to hear more from Mike Gravel? The guys a senile blowhard whose been out of office for two and a half decades. Again, if you want to hear from the real left flank of the Democratic Party, speak with Representative Dennis Kucinich. If you want the far right libertarian viewpoint, talk to Ron Paul. I'm not sure what you're going to get from Mike Gravel short of meandering diatribes and "glory days" revisionism. Good to see that other Americans were equally impressed at Ron Paul's performance. He is the ONLY Republican candidate willing to break with Bushism, and I would think all Americans, Republicans included, would welcome such a move. Posted by: Bryan | May 9, 2007 10:09:09 AM Ron Paul,

Please take a page out of history and run as a 3rd Party candidate like Ross Perot did in 1992. It is the only way for your message of sanity to be heard. PS Anything but a progressive tax system is bad for America. Posted by: jethro | May 9, 2007 10:11:26 AM Considering how well he has done with almost no press coverage (this is the first article I have seen in the MSM), I like to think he has a chance. I can't wait for the next debate... Posted by: Buddy Whittenburg | May 9, 2007 10:14:43 AM See Also:

SPECIAL MESSAGE TO SUPPORTERS OF RON PAUL: - Pajamas Media

http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/special-message-to-supporters-of-ron.html Posted by: Alex Hammer | May 9, 2007 10:24:04 AM Where are the Tribune articeS on Ron Paul? Your link for him goes to but ONE article about the debate in general. Yet for the other candidates you have so much more coverage. Why might that be? Especially with the serious lack of credibility of the media in reporting the race. You say there was no conscious decision to exclude Paul, so that means then that when you chose to cover someone that it is done unconsciously? Posted by: Douglas Willinger | May 9, 2007 10:29:59 AM Thank you very much for adding Dr. Paul. Posted by: Cutkomp | May 9, 2007 10:31:29 AM I believe Frank James is telling the truth here. It was an oversight by the "Swamp" to omit Ron Paul, nothing more. After all, if you don't write about the Republican candidates, don't talk to Republicans, and generally don't care about the GOP, it's easy to forget a Republican candidate or two. A political blog by a major newspaper forgets a candidate. Doesn't exactly endorse their knowledge of politics or current events, does it? Posted by: bruce | May 9, 2007 10:32:58 AM Ron Paul's web traffic was exceeding Obama's yesterday according to Alexa.com. Technorati also had him as the top blog search yesterday. There is a large ignored group of people, potential voters, who are finding a voice in Ron Paul. And while they may not be finding their representation in last century's mainstream media, they are creating their own on the internet. By the way, these people don't answer the phone, so don't look for their numbers in outdated telephone polls. Posted by: Marianne | May 9, 2007 10:37:03 AM Well, if the GOP wants to win, then Ron Paul is really their only chance. He's most likely to draw liberals over to vote for him. Everyone else running is a war monger and the people have already spoken on that. It's out. McCain and Giuliani have both practically promised to attack Iran... do you think they have a chance? Romney might be okay, but the christian conservatives simply would never allow a mormon... they'd split into their own party first. No, Ron Paul is really the only chance to beat the dems, if that's the plan, and in that light it will depend a lot on who they put against him.

Posted by: tsoldrin | May 9, 2007 11:03:47 AM Ron Paul will have a chance only when you, the media, start reporting him. How can he poll high if the people ---who's job it is for you to inform--- haven't heard of him? How can he win if the people ---who's job it is for you to give unbiased coverage--- are repetedly told he has no chance? The after-debate coverage of the debate was a disgrace. While the paid talking-heads were opining about anyone but Paul, the public was voting him to the top of the GOP candidates. We choose our candidates, not the media! Posted by: JTaverner | May 9, 2007 11:03:55 AM Ron Paul isn't the candidate of the future, he's the candidate of the past. No Income tax, no federal reserve, return to the gold standard, no welfare system. Great policies, if you are largely agrarian country 200 years ago. That's not the country we are any longer, nor is it realistic to think we are going to return to being a nation of small farmers. Posted by: Tony | May 9, 2007 11:05:03 AM Thank you for adding Dr. Ron Paul to your sidebar. Ron Paul has a huge grassroots campaign in the works. I recommend anyone to check out this youtube video of what he said at the GOP debate in California: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7yJgqnQ5Rc

If you don't know who he is, please check him out! You can read about him here: http://ronpaul2008.notlong.com/ Posted by: JLM | May 9, 2007 11:07:59 AM

Thank you Chicago Tribune for giving fair coverage to Dr Paul's run for the White House. Posted by: Anthony | May 9, 2007 11:14:49 AM Thanks for hearing our voices. He did win the debate. Watch this video and tell me he wasn't the best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo Posted by: Avery J. Knapp Jr. | May 9, 2007 11:14:53 AM "It's reminiscent of the spike in interest that happened on the Democratic presidential side with Mike Gravel, the former Democratic senator from Alaska."

Frank James "I believe Frank James is telling the truth here. It was an oversight by the "Swamp" to omit Ron Paul, nothing more. After all, if you don't write about the Republican candidates, don't talk to Republicans, and generally don't care about the GOP, it's easy to forget a Republican candidate or two."

Posted by: bruce | May 9, 2007 10:32:58 AM Mike Gravel didn't have his own link either, Mediabot bruce and your alter ego Former Leftist. And, frankly, no one had heard of Ron Paul before the debate, I don't recall YOU, oh great sage of media and political wisdom, talking about him either. Sorry, not everything in life is some big "liberal media" conspiracy. Bwahahahaha, the lefties strike again! Tony makes a good point, and that is that Mr. Paul's ideas sound great on paper, but are not appropriately suited to lead a great nation in the 21st Century. The best he can hope for, unless he does mount a 3rd party campaign as I alluded to yesterday and a poster on this thread brought up today, is to at least change the conversation in the GOP enough to alter the dynamic of the race. I've said it once and I'll say it again, Ron Paul is the only candidate who makes a significant break from Bushism. I would think that would provide great relief to the GOP faithful who are going to get creamed again in the 2008 elections if they don't bury Mr. Bush's legacy permanently. Bryan Posted by: Trolling for Bias | May 9, 2007 11:31:48 AM The MSM is pretty much ignoring Ron Paul. But here on the streets, everyone is talking about him. It just shows the disconnect of MSM to the truth. No wonder newspapers are losing subscribers. No wonder more people use the internet instead of TV for their news now. Posted by: Kirby Foster | May 9, 2007 11:36:45 AM it used to take that amount of money to win a general election.. but Ron Paul is a perfect example of the free flow of information the internet has given us. just look at the apology you gave - you were obviously hit with accusations of MSM bias.. which would be related to the large amounts of money you mentioned. but now that the internet has unlocked the near-monopoly of information, the people can finally breathe and have access to a candidate that reflects their concerns and not corporate America's.. Ron Paul will straighten this country out, will restore us to greatness.. Posted by: Patrick Henry | May 9, 2007 11:47:10 AM Thank you for fixing this oversight. All anyone asks is for fairness from the media. Posted by: Elwar | May 9, 2007 11:59:59 AM Anyone remember my great grass roots internet campaign? Posted by: Howard Dean | May 9, 2007 12:01:07 PM This author is right. For Paul to be taken seriously, he will need to raise as much money as his contenders. Currently, Paul's fundraising puts him in 6th place out of the 10 Republican debate contestants: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008 The above link ranks the candidates in terms of money. Posted by: Hank Debbar | May 9, 2007 12:25:23 PM Bless you for including Ron Paul. Even more for being honest. Ron Paul is the only choice for someone who stands firm against "staying the course" with our foreign policy of nation building and pre-emption (this just makes more enemies for us in the future!) I've never been so excited about a candidate--and I've never donated 'til now. The Ron Paul movement is REAL. Posted by: Aaron | May 9, 2007 12:43:52 PM Hank: Those amounts are not current. They were provided by the Federal Elections Commision for contributions through March 31, 2007. Many people have contributed since then, including me @ $300. The focus should be on public reaction to the debate, not money preceding it. An informed public will put their money into the candidate that best represents their views, assuming those views are reported by the media. It's time to ask why some are so eager to choose a candidate before debating the merits of the candidates. The debates are when we chose the candidate, not before. Posted by: JTaverner | May 9, 2007 12:50:03 PM I agree with you JTaverner. Btw- Can we really rely on these CNN/GAllop polls? I was under the impression that the pollers call people on landline phones. However, everybody I know under the age of 30 relies exclusively on a cell phone. So how do we know where the 18-30 year old bracket really stands? Maybe a lot of them support Ron Paul. Posted by: Hank Debbar | May 9, 2007 1:12:43 PM Ron Paul has been saying from the beginning that the internet will allow him to get his message out without trying to outspend the media favorites. And we can see that it is working with his recent success in the debates. He has a chance to win, it might not be the normal way to win an election by spending your way to the top, but if he can just get his message out, American will stand behind him as the true representative of the people. Posted by: brody | May 9, 2007 1:13:40 PM Ron Paul is a Republican...he hasn't got a chance! Posted by: Neal | May 9, 2007 1:21:05 PM Comments are not posted immediately. We review them first in an effort to remove foul language, commercial messages, irrelevancies and unfair attacks. Thank you for your patience.



The comments to this entry are closed.