Deafening Silence From the Right Wing Noise Machine on Ron’s Haul
Last time, I did a blog roundup for the right wing blogosphere’s reaction to Ron Paul’s moneybomb on November 5th. This time, while casually looking around ready to compile links, I found it weirdly silent on the matter.
Nothing from Captain’s Quarters. Not a peep from RCP (save a link on their news portal). Aside from a mean-spirited jab and a pathetic “hey guys, anybody gonna talk about this?” from Freddoso, The Corner is characteristically uninterested in bringing it up. Ace of Spades is instead impressed with how much I Am Legend pulled in this weekend. Nothing at Right Wing News. You’d have to look really hard to find Ron’s name at Hot Air. Not a word from Michelle Malkin. Pajamas Media is running a link on a stray dog Mike Huckabee’s son may or may not have owned, but no Paul. The Right Wing Nuthouse is uninterested. Hugh Hewitt is too busy being Romney’s hatchet man against Huckabee. Powerline is mum. Little Green Footballs would rather cover cats that glow in the dark. And Redstate and FreeRepublic have already explicitly announced their ban on anything Paul.
The fourth quarter is historically the lowest quarter for fundraising in the primaries. And by my count, Ron looks to exceed any other Republican’s haul for any quarter this season (for primary money). Yesterday was the biggest single-day haul (they say) in the history of the primary process, certainly for the GOP. And all of this in the Republican party. Ron Paul is now arguably the most successful GOP fundraiser in Presidential primary history—that’s not even debatable when return for investment or name ID is factored in. By all rights, this should be (is!) the biggest story in the Republican primary this year short of who actually wins the damn thing, and even then it’s close.
And yet, for all these partisan Republican sites, whose sole existence is predicated on covering Republican successes…not a word. Not…one…word. Not even a snide word, or a “maybe we should be thinking of how to harness this in the future” or even “we need to fight against it”. Nothing. It doesn’t rate a comment.
Is it really so incomprehensible that they can’t even formulate a thought on it? Is it really so frightening that to even Speak His Name is to be avoided at all costs?
What gives?
Actually, I think most of the conservative blogosphere has discounted for awhile that Paul was going to raise roughly 20 million this quarter. The haul yesterday was impressive but not unexpected. I read bloggers saying he could raise 100 million and still not break 10%(of course, 2 months ago they were saying he would never break 2%). At this point it’s about polling numbers as far as the horserace game and media attention.
Comment by Kaligula — 12/17/2007 @ 12:13 pm
Kal’s got it, I think. There’s an opportunity to be had for the candidate who makes a move in Paul’s direction, but the chattering classes have no reason to discuss him. Only success at the polls will divert their attention at this point.
Comment by Rojas — 12/17/2007 @ 12:19 pm
I have found one Breitbart story in the MSM swamp so far, that’s it. How utterly and unsurprisingly pathetic.
Comment by James — 12/17/2007 @ 12:30 pm
Is it not the case, at least to some extent, that the “Jesus Christ, Paul can raise a lot of money, using the internets too” story played out last quarter? The more interesting story, I would think, relates to his improving numbers.
Comment by Adam — 12/17/2007 @ 12:36 pm
An interesting story that is utterly and unsurprisingly ignored by the MSM.
Comment by James — 12/17/2007 @ 12:50 pm
I’ve seen quite a bit in the MSM, actually. Third story on CNN politics, first item in the RCP newsticker, first story at Politico–in every case, higher on the list than the Lieberman endorsement.
Brad has a point about the right wing noise machine ignoring this story, but I don’t think one can fault the MSM too much.
Comment by Rojas — 12/17/2007 @ 12:56 pm
I’ll have to look again. I checked CNN earlier and there was nada. As for the Right-Wing Noise Machine, one can only assume that it is a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Comment by James — 12/17/2007 @ 1:07 pm
Drudge has it in red second from the top in the right hand column.
Comment by Cameron — 12/17/2007 @ 1:13 pm
That is the Breitbart story I believe.
Comment by James — 12/17/2007 @ 1:17 pm
I’m not talking about the MSM, but in the “citizen media” whose interest is presumably in discussing and pushing a Republican brand of maximum impact and effect.
That Ron Paul is someone they feel they have to ignore shouldn’t surprise me, or anyone, of course, but it continually does. 20 million in a quarter is something that one would think ought to raise eyebrows for a party that is going broke and can’t seem to muster the base enthusiasm of a pie-eating contest at this point. That they feel compelling to avert their eyes to this movement within their own party continually astounds me, in spite of myself.
Comment by Brad — 12/17/2007 @ 1:18 pm
Ron Paul truly represents the battle for the Republican Party’s soul. Sadly, I fear it is a battle being lost on all fronts.
When this a stunt this outrageously stunning by a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination doesn’t warrant mention amongst the party hacks, I can only shake my head.
Comment by Cameron — 12/17/2007 @ 1:24 pm
Ron Paul’s name is mentioned indirectly on Michelle Malkin’s blog in a statement from Rep. Steve King:
“Newsflash: Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King endorses Thompson:
“Every Republican candidate, except Ron Paul, will fight Al Qaeda and the Global War on Islamic Jihad. The combination of eternal vigilance and good fortune has kept us safe within our borders. We must stay on the offensive if we are to eventually defeat our enemies. The Republican nominee will fight this war and move us closer to a final victory. The differences between the candidates on the war are ultimately unlikely to dramatically redirect our destiny. The differences between the candidates is in degree, not substance.”
Comment by Qnunc — 12/17/2007 @ 1:56 pm
I would say that complaining about inattention to the people that you can reach (generally, not the people ignoring you) is the almost-perfect counterproductive ploy.
Comment by Adam — 12/17/2007 @ 3:22 pm
I’m not even complaining. It just seems to me a strange thing that the opinion leaders of a party in rapid decline should choose to give the cold shoulder in the one bright spot in their party this campaign season, in terms of bringing in money, energizing volunteers, and getting people enthused about a Republican candidate.
Of course, their answer may well be “He’s not actually a Republican candidate”, which is part of why I’m highlighting it.
Comment by Brad — 12/17/2007 @ 3:26 pm
I suspect that the people you are talking about neither agree with you that the party is necessarily in a ‘rapid decline’ (although I imagine most of them are aware of difficulties) nor would they agree that the Paul campaign is a bright spot.
If they feel as you do then yes, it’d be weird that they weren’t talking about it more.
Comment by Adam — 12/17/2007 @ 3:34 pm
No, it’s weird to me that they don’t feel as I do.
Comment by Brad — 12/17/2007 @ 3:36 pm
Indeed, it’s more than just nothing. I did a quick news search from the last time the one-day fund-raising total was broken. There were reports ALL OVER the media. All the mainstream news outlets had headlines. This time, the same search for Paul finds only the one exact same story that’s referenced here (Brietbart).
Oh, the candidate last time? Kerry.
I think the media and the establishment has reached the point where they’re honestly scared that Paul could actually win — and the government gravy train might actually end.
Comment by Ogre — 12/17/2007 @ 3:45 pm
Paul got all over the media for the previous moneybomb, was my point. In any case, do the Paul campaign really have to rely on “we’ve done it again!”? The improving numbers would appear to be a much better story for them to push (or, you know, complain about the fact it’s being ignored).
Comment by Adam — 12/17/2007 @ 3:55 pm
I thought the entire purpose of blogging was to complain.
Comment by James — 12/17/2007 @ 3:57 pm
I think that’s the fate of the Paulosphere come sometime next year…
In the meantime, though, they have a campaign to run.
Comment by Adam — 12/17/2007 @ 4:04 pm
People are tired of the same-old song-and-dance from their presidential candidates. Check out this YouTube music video from the international award-winning feature film, “Song of the Dead,” featuring horror movie icon, Reggie Bannister. It’s a great satire on the president, MSM, and the war on terror. The filmmaker is donating a share of his profits to the Ron Paul campaign.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Comment by mketcher — 12/17/2007 @ 5:27 pm
I get a sense that the right wing blogosphere have dug a hole for themselves on where to go with this story. Let’s face it, Malkin, Ace, Morrissey, and others the OP listed have been the defacto “deciders/opinionshapers” on the right for a number of years. And their opinion on Dr. Paul has been consistently off the mark. He’s a crank, he’s a tinfoil hat wearer, he’s a racist (by association of course) or whatever slur that they’ve been fed or created hasn’t stuck.
That Dr. Paul continues to gain traction and attention despite those attacks is like a giant “FU” to the deciders. So what do they do? They ignore him and hope he goes away.
Comment by Randolphus Maximus — 12/17/2007 @ 9:52 pm
The Ron Paul Revolution is spreading. After watching CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other networks all day today, I would venture a guess here – it is entirely on purpose that the MSM is not covering this event. They have figured out that ANY coverage helps to spread the message of freedom and the Ron Paul Revolution. Stop watching their news (oops, not news anymore, just entertainment) shows, and lower their ratings. They will understand this, as ratings effects their paychecks and people who don’t watch the advertisers consequently can’t spend money on their products. Money is what most of these people care about, and what rules them. Only money. Use the knowledge for good purpose….
Comment by BreakYourChains — 12/18/2007 @ 12:19 am
Look, there’s a lot of people making claims about the MSM here that just flat-out aren’t true.
The story HAS in fact played, and played prominently, on several of the media outlets BYC mentions above. I watched it myself on CNN.
I think Brad’s initial discussion in this thread about the Republican blogosphere is a lot more interesting than the whole MSM meme. Above all else, we shouldn’t be making factually incorrect claims. They cause our legitimate complaints to lose credibility with those who matter.
Comment by Rojas — 12/18/2007 @ 12:26 am
Yeah the story isn’t the amount of total media attention, it’s the seeming lack of notice from the very republican political hacks who should care. This should be big news to Republican party die-hards, but they are the ones who aren’t paying it a whiff of attention.
You’d think that they would seize upon the fact that a Republican presidential nominee has had an $18 million 4th quarter as a sign…of some sort. But alas, no. Too them it’s not even worthy of consideration, Paul is just some fringe kook and doesn’t represent the party as a whole.
I really see Paul as the last gasp of libertarianism in the Republican party, and if the mainstream Republican commentators dismiss Paul so readily, to hell with them.
Comment by Cameron — 12/18/2007 @ 12:40 am
As to the observation on:”the seeming lack of notice from the very republican political hacks who should care. “, I have a theory. As a member of Free Republic, (screen name Twodees) I watched the takeover of the site by neocon laptop bombardiers after the 2000 election. I commented more than once that they looked exactly like Clinton supporters to me, both in their agressive and mindless attack tactics and their liberal socialist positions on issues.
These cyber warriors aren’t really diehard GOP activists. They are diehard neocons who jump from party to party with each change in regime. That’s how they manage to be comfortable with disregarding Ron Paul’s successes and popularity.
I don’t think the main issue with them is success of republicans in elections, it’s more an issue of the success of their favored neocon candidates. They couldn’t possibly care less that their influence on the party has been destroying support for the GOP, and leading the party off a cliff.
The neocons will jump ship and change parties, if necessary, when a new president gains the white house, just as they did when Reagan won his first term, and just as they did when Clinton won his. FR is dominated by this bunch of online propagandists. I watched it happen during 2001 as conservative members were banned or quit the site in disgust. I’m one who quit in disgust.
The neocons will simply go back the the democrats once a democrat gains the presidency.
Comment by Edd — 12/18/2007 @ 9:05 am
‘Neocon’ is basically an insult now, which is unfortunate, because it’s not an entirely vacuous intellectual position (although it’s one with which I disagree, in general). Not unlike the way that many Americans use ‘liberal’, in that regard.
Comment by Adam — 12/18/2007 @ 9:56 am
Interesting observation, Edd.
Frankly, if that’s the case, I find the Neocons’ behavior to be out-and-out admirable. A voter SHOULD support candidates of his or her ideology, rather than adhering to a party label.
Comment by Rojas — 12/18/2007 @ 10:16 am
It comes back to feeling that the ideology itself is noxious, I suppose, the judgement of behaviour that you are describing. However, in any case, Edd is probably saying that they’re not skipping party for ideological reasons but just to be close to the power.
Comment by Adam — 12/18/2007 @ 10:46 am
And why wouldn’t they?
If I could create a group of pro-liberty ideologues who could influence administrations of either party, and which could change administration policy as thoroughly as Bush’s changed between 2000 and 2002, I’d do so in a heartbeat.
Comment by Rojas — 12/18/2007 @ 10:59 am
I agree that they would, given that their purpose is to realise their aims. It’s not a matter of picking the party whose ideology best suits them (which you were discussing), though, is my point; whilst I would agree with you that such behaviour is admirable, Edd is making a different accusation, that they are whoring their ideological convictions about to get close to power. I agree with you that the behaviour is, nevertheless, entirely understandable.
Comment by Adam — 12/18/2007 @ 11:36 am