The Washington Post‘s series of candidate profiles continues. Today it’s Ron Paul’s turn.
In Joel Achenbach’s main piece (12/15/11), readers learn, in the lead paragraph, that Paul is
not the standard presidential candidate–he lacks the factory-built appearance of Mitt Romney or Rick Perry. He’s thin, bony, a bantam rooster.
Thankfully, the rest of the piece is focused more on substance. But a second article is peculiarly focused on Paul’s looks and the sound of his voice–suggesting that this explains why he doesn’t get much “attention” (which, when reporters say it, should be taken to mean “media attention,” since Paul obviously is attracting the interest of actual voters).
Sarah Kaufman writes (12/15/11):
So why, with his long-held views and an enthusiastic base of support, does Paul get so little attention? It’s not only his anti-establishment message. Part of his acceptance issue is the way he presents himself. As much as he is a refreshing departure from the mold, he also comes across as a gadfly.
Consider if Paul had the heftier, more serious bearing of a Romney or a Gingrich. Would he be so easy to dismiss? In the Darwinian world of public perception, it’s easy to discount what you hear from someone who looks a little smaller, and perhaps a little weaker. Especially when his voice tends to spiral into the upper registers.
Yep, if only he could look like Newt Gingrich–with his “more serious bearing”–then the media would take him seriously. It’s hard to criticize the media when they explain their deficiencies on their own.
Looks and sounds “funny” …
That must be why Dubya wasn’t taken seriously.
Wait a minute …
I take Paul quite seriously, because there’s nothing funny about an ideology that advocates “freedom” over our collective responsibility to and for each other.
I guess that only applies if you believe in that whole Golden Rule thing, though.
After reading this I must say my only thought was….if FAIR is sticking up for a candidate on the right- it is past time to run from said candidate.FAIR has only one interest.And it is not giving anyone on the right anything but a swift kick in the ass.This is called divide and conquer.Paul comes off as a “bit off”,because some of his ideas are a bit off.And i happen to be a fan(at least of his economic book of truths).His gadfly appearance of course does not project strength.And right or wrong …..that is not helpful.The presidency today is a visual medium.
Doug…..What is our “collective responsibility”to each other?I can’t find it anywhere in the constitution(at least not of this country).
For confused ‘michael e’:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
So “We” (collective) have these following responsibilities, in addition to the civic duty of paying taxes to the government that in turn maintains that “people are to be provided (a) justice, (b) civil peace, (c) common defense, and (d) those things of a general welfare that they could not provide themselves”. The Constitution is a Social Contract, ‘collective’ in scope among the citizens and implying and explicating responsibilities between the government and the citizenry. These semantic games are useless for any substantial understanding of what a constitution is in the first place. It’s akin to saying that “privacy” is not protected in the Bill of Rights because the specific word is never used, and ignoring the substance of the meaning of the actual 4th Amendment, which is a clear definition (for functional minds) of private property. I like how the new victims of ‘class warfare’, the pitiful rich, are the same ones claiming the right to abdicate their social responsibilities. “Stop lying, stop manipulating” – Michael Bluth
Thank you, Jason. It’s time people actually read and understood the Constitution – or at least parts of it.
Hi Janson. Notice how the addle-pated cretin above has pulled this thread away from discussing media treatment of candidates like Mr Paul? It never has been, nor will it ever be, of any use to engage him in any way at all, ever. Remember Internet Rule #14: Don’t feed the trolls, it only encourages them.
I would say the mission of FAIR is to be fair and to not intentionally serve as an advocate for either political wing. (Just like the ACLU.) Its criticisms of WaPo are essential as this pulp fiction publication is one of the flagships of the newspaper world, driven now to shape public opinion as much as to report objectively on events. Talk about a bantam rooster, Ross Perot wasn’t a fat hulk of a man either and his voice certainly wasn’t as sonorous as Tip O’Neil’s, but he was taken seriously as an independent voice. According to C-SPAN, if Perot hadn’t stood up to the media and angrily told them to stop focusing on the most shallow details of his life instead of how the U.S. was giving millions to Saddam Hussein, he would have kept his campaign on track … funny how honesty works against politicians in this country.
@ onewhore – Internet rule #6: Never trust anonymous postings. Thanks for for your kindly attempts at showing me the ropes of internet discourse. I have a hard time understanding how anyone is worse off for discussing the fundamentals of the Constitution, especially in these days when these fundamentals are being so twisted and misunderstood (by far more than mere trolls). The fact that people still debate whether or not America is a ‘republic’ or a ‘democracy’ (when we are a democratically-elected republic) shows the very sad state of civic education in the country. Whos is hurt by having this discussion? Meanwhile, Ron Paul has
sorry, I dozed off for a second. Something about how he looks funny, and what that says about the unregulated free market corporate media, or something about how, in the libertarian ideal, money not only equals speech but truth as well? Would Paul disagree?
Janson you are right in saying anyone can get lost in semantics.And certainly the constitution has the depth that can ignite endless debate over its intent.Certainly honest scholars agree to disagree.I suppose we can do the same.
Note:WE the people indicates” the individual right to stand and be heard. To speak with freedom of speech in open assembly…..”(Jefferson).I would put it that the constitutions main “intent” is personal freedom over the collective, except in a few narrow exceptions.You seem to be saying that a collective joining under the head of a ruling body is the reality.Yet WE the people have agreed to be governed …not ruled.Your scoffing at Dr Pauls constitutional interpretations really does not fly.I have seldom heard constitutional scholars shout down his views.What word do you libs use?…Ah yes consensus!The consensus does seem to be on his side.
Taxation originally stated that man shall not be taxed on his wage.Even the line in the Declaration life liberty and pursuit of happiness once read read life liberty and ownership of land.Some of the first words in the constitution say to “ourselves and our posterity”It does not say to the collective and its posterity.The laws laid down in the constitution are individually based.Look to our courts.Each man is allowed a trial of his peers..Each man has rights.You are right to put your finger on the crux of todays disagreement between right and left.We on the right are the bearers of the standard of personal freedoms.You on the left for the good of the collective.This idea so prevalent in liberal circles of one huge collective commune governed by an ever growing Federal power simply has no basis in constitutional law.That is the vote we see ahead on the horizon.
Thanks for showing more abandoned semantics. Perhaps you are not mathematically inclined, or perhaps you would better understand that a “collective” is not a singularity but a plurality, a singular plurality. If you cannot appreciate these simultaneous qualities, that could be part of the problem, much in the same way that some on the right describe ‘diversity’ as conforming. A totality of individuals is not a totalitarian state. The collective responsibilities between each law-abiding citizen to other citizens and their government are mutual and simultaneous. There is no ‘head of a ruling body’. More dissembling. The president is an administrator, not a tyrant. The fact is that you want to believe what you want to believe, and the human mind is very agile at justifying its delusions. These niche echo chambers solidify these delusions, and there frankly isn’t a functional civics curriculum in public education anymore to defend against the willful perversion of these documents (ie, resorting to quoting the ‘land-owning’ draft of the Declaration without regarding why it was discarded in the first place). Is it even worth mentioning the Federalist Papers? Perhaps someone will read this and educate themselves to the facts over the fancies of the neo-confederates out there.
@onewhoreads – I’m very sorry for the above apparent slur. As incredulous as it sounds, it was not intentional, and it was very shameful to see that I had had made the mistake.
Janson I was struck by your line that presidents are not tyrants.Strange I was of the opinion that you were a liberal.And all liberals feel Bush was of course a tyrant right?.Obama in pushing through his healthcare certainly felt that way to conservatives.I would say to you that the fact is that you believe what you want to believe,and the human mind is very good at justifying its delusions(who said that).The truth is that this separation is what we will be voting on in november.My feeling is Obama will loose and loose big.The idea of a socialist utopia that steps over the constitution ,and recognizes it as a” mean document that inhibits governments power will be over.The experiment gone down in flames along with it’s European supporters” You will be left to consider that the majority is misinformed ,and a bunch of co opted moronic idiots.Or you may open your mind to another possibility.
Many of my conservative friends question my sanity in even speaking to angry liberals(fiscal pedophiles).They see them as fools to be shunned.I heard Rush say that today on air actually.I try to offer a different opinion on this sight.An opinion shared by a huge part of this country yet spurned by the liberal elite.So don’t be sorry for listening to other opinions.I fight the same battle daily.It is the only way we can move on.
It is interesting to watch how the media manipulates campaigns. They have brought out the “he doesn’t look presidential enough” attack a number of times in campaigns past. Since Ron Paul doesn’t fit the republican’s ideal, and he seems to still be around, it was only a matter of time before the media began to shoot the wheels out from under his campaign. It’s kind of entertaining to watch this republican rivalry when you don’t have a horse in the race.
Just another bland hitpiece that gives cover to the MSM hitpieces.
Evidently, Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, independence, responsibility and prosperity has been turned on its’ head by the blogosphere AND the MSM, thanks to fascists, warmongers, and a spectrum of ignorant individuals that spans so-called truthers to so-called denialists!
Ron Paul looks pretty damn good for a man who has served his constituents so well thus far; the WaPo is just another worthless MSM rag… unless you have pets, ofcourse!
Vote for liberty and monetary policy reform.
Your pets will thank you.