Why the mainstream media should cover Ron Paul

Watching the campaign of Ron Paul has been very interesting so far. The most frustrating part is seeing, despite his incredible success on the campaign trail and on the Internet, the mainstream media continue to downplay his importance. It leaves most of us wondering if there really is some sort of conspiracy between the major political parties and the media.

I'd prefer the explanation to be plain old capitalism: that the media simply wants to cover the candidates they think people want to hear about. And most of the mainstream polls show Dr. Paul as a long-shot to win the nomination (Yes, I think, as many people do, that those polls are flawed, but that's a story for another day).

But I'd like to suggest that the media could benefit from covering Ron Paul more enthusiastically because he's where the really interesting stories are. The other candidates are more of the same stuff we've been hearing for the last few decades. Politics as usual. How can that be what we really want to read & watch?

I think people would tune in again and again to see the classic underdog story: Ron Paul as someone who no one thought had much of a chance who now is climbing in polls and contributions while the other candidates slip. His ideas are interesting, much more than anything proposed by the others. I'll even give you a few story ideas:

"Can an Honest Man Succeed in Washington?" about how Ron Paul might manage to work within our current corrupt politics.

"America without an Income Tax" about how Paul's plan to eliminate the income tax would affect the typical family. Could also be titled, "50% Raise for all Americans?"

"Can a Man be both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice?" about how Paul is personally pro-life (based on his experiences as a doctor) but that he also believes the Federal government has no business in this area and that we should return this subject to the individual states to decide, actually increasing our available choices in this matter.

"The Ron Paul Military" about what our military would look like once it's not spread around the world.

"World Opinion on Staying Away" about world opinion on Ron Paul's noninterventionist philosophy.

"Homeless Government Workers?" about how current government workers would adjust to being unemployed under a Paul administration (presumably it would be a boost to the economy once they find jobs in the private sector).

"Does an End to Play Money Make Sense?" about returning to a gold standard for currency, why it should be considered, whether that's practical today, and what effect it would have on the typical person.

Mainstream media, instead of just marginalizing Ron Paul's campaign, why not use it to your benefit and turn his compelling ideas into truly interesting stories?

Why Ron Paul could actually win

In a previous post, I remarked that although I was very excited by Ron Paul's presidential candidacy, he had a slim chance of winning the Republican nomination.

I'm ready to change my tune.

Call me delusional, but I think he could win not only the nomination but the presidency.

Here's how. His campaign has developed some serious legs. He's stirred up the somewhat dormant masses of libertarians lurking throughout college campuses and on the Internet. The media is starting to notice him. That in itself is huge! Ron Paul's supporters are much more passionate than those for other candidates. And it's now to the point where there are enough people behind him that he has real campaign money.

One of the first primary elections will be held in New Hampshire, which happens to be the most libertarian state in the nation. Ron Paul will most likely garner a surprisingly high number of votes--I think his supporters will be the most active and organized and their support will show at the polls--to the point where it's quite possible he wins in the state.

His message rings so true. People who hear it and allow it to sink in are drawn to it. I think support for Ron Paul will continue to grow. And eventually, a tipping point will be reached where his popularity becomes a media event. Then, the media bias may actually turn in his direction instead of (as now) tending to portray him as a long-shot crackpot. People who never cared about politics before will start rooting for him.

So, why on earth would the Republican Party, which so far has derided him, choose instead to nominate him as their candidate?

Because he's their only chance of winning the next election.

All the other Republican candidates support continuing the Iraq war. That has become such an unpopular stance that no one advocating it has any chance of winning. Rest assured, an anti-war candidate will win the next presidency.

If Ron Paul were nominated as the national Republican candidate, it would be a media sensation. Voters would be forced to take notice of the message this man brings. Everyone loves an underdog who becomes a hero.

And for the first time in a very long time, there will be two distinctly different candidates running for office: one for continuing our trip down socialist lane, continuing our war-mongering, redistribution-of-wealth, no-more-liberties chariot ride, and the other for shrinking government and returning to the principles on which this country was founded. It will be the most interesting and exciting race so far in my lifetime.

And at that point, there will be enough people in the media spotlight able to expose the consequences of electing the tenets of the Democratic platform: bankrupting our country, creating more enemies around the world, growing our police state, and further trouncing the Constitution until it is beyond recognition. Voters will be forced to wake up and vote for Dr. Paul.

I wonder if Ron Paul knew what was he was getting into when he announced his candidacy.

The unfortunate demise of Studio 60

As the fall TV season starts once again, I just want to state how disappointed I was that Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was cancelled at the end of last season. I thought it was the best new show of the year. It had a great blend of comedy and drama, very high production values, and consistently impressive acting. It seemed a little like a cross between Chicago Hope and The Larry Sanders Show, if that makes sense. The end of the season was much darker than the beginning--at first this felt wrong, but eventually, it demonstrated the amazing versatility of the cast.

For whatever reason, the show had a tough time finding a large enough audience. The viewers it did have were loyal, but apparently not numerous enough to support the show in the network's eyes. It's a shame when quality shows don't get the respect they deserve.

The DVD set comes out this week; if you missed the series, seriously consider renting it.

Tech Ed, Schmeck Ed

A couple of my work buddies are at Microsoft Tech Ed this week as they have been every year for a while now. It's been a long time since I've been to a national conference. I just don't see the value in it--the signal to noise ratio always seems so low.

There's so much valuable information available online now. Don't waste your time at big conferences--if you boil down the content, most of it is really designed to get you hyped about the upcoming products the company wants you to buy (in this case, Microsoft). That tends to not be useful; it just keeps the fast train of technology speeding along. Slow down! You find out about those upcoming products once they really become relevant.

If you insist on partaking of the conference's content, do it online. Many conferences (especially Tech Ed) now offer videos, presentation slides, and blogs for non-attendees on the web. It's a lot easier to find the meat of a seminar by looking through the notes or fast-forwarding through the video than sitting trapped in a full day of sessions.

Google Gears

Relating to my previous post about a possible Google OS, I just did a quick web search and found that today Google announced Google Gears, a new open source API browser extension to enable offline storage and retrieval for web apps. That's one of the puzzle pieces I mentioned, so I think that increases the chances a Google OS is in the works.

How's that for timing?

Will we see a Google OS?

I’ve had this hunch for a while that Google will eventually perform an end run around Microsoft and suddenly release a personal computer operating system of their own to compete with Windows. Compared to Windows, it would be very simplified and small, and would be centered around web applications. I would welcome such a product.

It’s interesting to speculate how a Google OS would work. It would obviously rely on access to the web and would presumably use Google apps like gmail, Google Docs & Sheets, and Picasa. I speculate Google would use either a brand new written-from-the-ground-up operating system or a modified variant of Linux. It would boot very quickly right into a web browser. The web browser would be like the “desktop” on Windows machines. All Google PCs would come with network access built-in.

The big question is whether the device would provide an offline mode. Especially for portable models, it seems like users might want to access their documents and emails even when they’re not connected to the Internet. But eliminating local caching would greatly simplify things and would even eliminate the need for a hard drive (the minimal local storage needed could be served with flash memory).

Here’s the really interesting part: the operating system would be free. Google would provide the OS without charge because it will be supported by advertising. While you’re using your applications, non-obtrusive ads will be displayed that are relevant to what you’re doing. The hardware would be very inexpensive. Because the OS is lightweight and most of the processing occurs on Internet servers, a minimal amount of processing power and memory is required. The typical low-end personal computer being sold today would be more than enough power. It could give back a purpose to all those older computers that today are feeling sluggish under Windows.

Is Ron Paul's candidacy a turning point in American politics?

I was very excited when I discovered congressman Ron Paul was running for President. As the most consistently libertarian congressperson (even though he's registered Republican), he has provided the only remaining shreds of hope our government may someday stop this ever increasing journey toward fascism.


Although I'm not sure we need presidential debates a full 19 months prior to the election, I am very pleased for a chance to see all the candidates get a chance on stage. It remains to be seen whether any third party candidates will have a chance to debate. But in the meantime, we have the next best thing: Ron Paul.

As has been well covered by now, there was a tense moment at the Republican debate earlier this week. In an answer about foreign policy, Paul responded that our interventionist policies have actually been a contributing factor to the terrorism we've experienced. Rudy Giuliani countered out of turn about how absurd and offensive Paul's remark was. The audience applauded wildly as Giuliani called for Paul's retraction and apology. My heart sank as I waited for Paul to cower and waver on his statement.

But he didn't! Instead he further explained what he said without backing down. It was the proudest moment I've had as an American for a long time. Finally, someone standing up to the truth. In post debate interviews, Paul continued to stick to his convictions and in some cases, even commented that Giuliani should apologize to him.

But here's why I think this could be a turning point: there's a lot of positive chatter on the Internet about Ron Paul, especially since the debate. I think the Internet may finally be ubiquitous enough to serve as a tool to unite voters who would have previously been squelched by the media and major parties. The press is much more influenced by the Internet than previously and all the interest around Paul will most likely spill over into major media. There is already plenty of evidence of that; it's just a question of whether it will have staying power.

Admittedly, Paul has a slim chance of actually becoming the Republican nominee, but if he can remain a force through the entire election cycle, it will be a huge breath of fresh air and could have major implications in determining the policies for the next decade. And we will have learned that there is still some hope for truth and common sense.