What took you so long :)

   Well, since you brought up the 9/11 truthers and all, maybe you're ready for a little bit of Chomsky at his best. You don't have to buy every word to understand why it is that Paul was largely ignored-- and why this was almost inevitable for a Republican party that threw a lot of its mojo behind the Iraq war and subsequent occupation. There were even direct echoes: Chomsky has often been accused of being crazy or fanatical, a charge leveled repeatedly against Paul, and just last month Jonah Golberg (on Tucker Carlson) complained that Ron tended too often to "blame America first"-- a label everyone who's ever read Noam knows all too well.
    I'd still be leery about Jewish cabals and Trilateral Commission types- go see if your library has a copy of Jon Ronson's THEM: Adventures With Extremists for a more detailed explanation. (While you're there, should you go, The Men Who Stare At Goats is also a very interesting read.) There's a fine line between "propaganda" and "projection", but you can usually tell the difference after a little thought.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

I have another theory--news producers are assholes. Actually, that's not a theory, it's something I feel to be fact. But here's the theory: Paul did actually get a good bit of coverage before the campaigns kicked into high gear. During this period, every online and call-in poll the cable nets held was overwhelmingly won by Paul. Time and time again, we saw news casters actually saying things along the lines of, "hey guys, love the enthusiasm but you just 'invalidated' our unscientific poll." Every time there was a poll Paul-ites texted and emailed each other to respond. They had the early intensity and it actually worked to kind of get their guy on the map. I know it's how I first became aware of his campaign.

But something else also happened. The news guys felt embarrassed and when people in that industry get embarrassed they get really pissed and petty-vindictive. I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL to find that Paul's being left out of results at key times was a direct result of news producers wanting to get back at him and his supporters. They don't care about the results, they don't support him in the first place, they don't think he can win, why not hand his supporters who ruined their polling mojo a big Fuck You. Essentially the message would go something like this: "You think you can manipulate our news broadcasts to get your man attention? We'll show you exactly who controls our news broadcasts, we do and your guy can't play." Is that professional? Hell no. In short, it's exactly what you'd expect from a cable news network.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Given all that, this just wasn't (and isn't) the year for a libertarian candidate to really shine as a stark contrast. Next time, maybe they'll have better luck (and hopefully put up a better, more effective candidate and campaign).

Man, how much worse does stuff have to get before the platform of a libertarian candidate becomes a stark contrast to the status quo?

The thing that gets me about this whole thing is, I occasionally troll the forums on Fark (I feel dirty admitting this. Is there a 12 step program?) and all I see is people bitching and moaning about the status quo, the Bush administration, government interference in people's lives, the war, and many derivations thereunto. Yet many of these same Fark Regulars were in the RP threads shouting from the rooftops that Dr. Paul is "crazy." Somebody pointed out that RP is for the same stuff the very same people are regularly complaining about... silence.

Every candidate has kooky ideas. Didn't Edwards want to force everybody to buy health insurance or get it somehow, and then fine them if they did not comply? The people who harp on and on about personal responsibility did not question his sanity. But because RP wants a return to the gold standard he's insane*. Is that the only reason? Somebody fill me in.

Why is that people will so blindly believe questions about a candidates sanity and vote against their own interests? If Paul or a Libertarian candidate was polling at 45% (pipe dream, I know) do you think the same fark regulars would still be calling for a 72-hour psych hold?

Editor's Note: I do not necessarily believe a return to the gold standard would be the best idea, although it is worth debate. I'd be happy with mandatory balanced budgets (perhaps with portions dedicated for debt service) unless in the face of a declared war or some other massive emergency.