The Chances of a Long Shot

First of all, Happy New Year to all! A new year, a new hope, a new page.

A year ago, I NEVER would have thought that I would be supporting ANY presidential candidate, much less one that has hopes to finish top four in Iowa and New Hampshire. Yes, Ron Paul has been a long shot since day one, but think where he has come from in the past year. On Jan 1, 2007, my best hope had been for several years was that George Mason economist, author, commentator, Rush Limbaugh substitute Walter Williams would perhaps run for president. I didn't think it was a serious thought on his part, but it was someone I could say I would support if someone asked me. It had never occurred to me that Rep Ron Paul, who I have followed for some five years, would enter the race, especially considering that he may very well have been President Bush's most constant critic.

A couple weeks into January, I read online a pretty likely rumor that Dr Paul would be running for the republican nomination and I was ecstatic! I could hardly believe what I was reading, that this true and tried, consistent conservative constitutionalist would be running. Now, I admit I had no fake optimism that he would win, but I was tired of supporting someone on the basis of the "lesser of two evil" argument, so I determined I would support Dr Paul with all that I had.

That was January and little did I know what was ahead in the year to come. Not only did he take apart in all but one of the republican debates, but the post debate polls (unscientific) all put him as the winner of the debates. Clearly, it was not because Dr Paul was a better joke or story teller, the great giver of one liners, or even the most articulate. It was because of his message of liberty, freedom, and little government intervention, both personally and abroad. The message resonated and spread like a wild fire. Dr Paul went on to set fundraising records, not once but twice (Nov 5 and Dec 16.) Again, it was not because of any emotional plea by Dr Paul or some well crafted oration, appealing to the heartstrings. No, it was the message that inspired a few to rally those now embracing freedom to give at a time when the giving is hard, when the economy is faltering. Paul also did very well among the many straw polls across the nation. He exceeded expectations in all of them and in many cases, winning them.

And yet, though the straw polls were a huge success, the giving was record breaking, and the debates were won, Dr Paul was still considered a "long-shot" and labelled a "flake" or a "crack pot" by many in the mainstream media and rank and file republicans. Granted, they did indeed point to national polls but are they any more accurate than the post debate unscientific polls or straw polls when they (the national polls) are skewed toward typical GOP voters from 2004-2006 while many of Dr Paul's supporters either were disillusioned republicans (like myself) who didn't vote republican in 2004, other party members such as libertarians or democrats who now registered as republicans, or simply were too young to vote in the last elections?

But as if labelling someone a long-shot or flake wasn't enough, the media seemed to be extremely determined to make sure they stacked the odds further against Dr Paul. Not only was there very little notice of most of the straw polls won, but the post debate wins were mocked out of hand and the biggest day in fundraising history received hardly a blip on the media screen. (Turns out it was not as big as Sen Lieberman endorsing sen McCain according to the press.) But the bias goes further. In the debates, there were certain candidates ALWAYS centered in the middle of the stage and always receiving twice as many opportunities to speak as compared to the others relegated to the far wings of the platform. And when Dr Paul was afforded interview or debate questions, many times at least one of the questions was inevitably not on his views, not on policy, but on why he was running as a republican or if he would run third party or not when he did not receive the nomination. Now we get word of a Foxnews "forum," (yes the same Foxnews which claims to be fair and balanced, the same Foxnews whose logo is flanked by the slogan, "We Report, You Decide") which will be held just days before the New Hampshire primary, that will not include Dr Paul and others.

How can one think anything but that the press is biased against Dr Paul? Whether it be for simply the reason that they don't see him a possibility (like George Stephanopoulos telling Rep Paul point blank to Paul's goal of winning, "That's not gonna happen.") to something more sinister.

The deck has been stacked against Dr Paul. While a few commentators have had some good things to say about him (Tucker, Neapolitano, Cafferty, etc), most of the others simply ignore him (Keith Olbermann, the most upset about the war of any commentator, has said extremely little about Paul while Paul is the CLEAR choice among either party's potential nominees to bring the troops home NOW) or take it a step further to deriding him (Schuster, Hannity, Kristol, Beck.)

The press chooses what stories are newsworthy and which aren't, which candidates they think are newsworthy and which aren't. It chooses to cover certain candidates overwhelmingly in both parties. There are a few in both parties that can cry out that they have not received a "fair amount" of coverage. However, I don't see another candidate with so much popularity online, at straw polls, in contributions, waving signs, showing up to opponent's events, etc who has been so incredibly left out of the mainstream discussion. This proves to me that there is, for whatever reason, a real bias in the media against Dr Paul. This bias is probably deliberate among some, though for most it is simply because they have been told over and over, "Here are the ones who are the possiblities" and Dr Paul is not among them.

Does this make Ron Paul an even longer shot at the presidency? For some, the answer is yes, that this bias has kept many from hearing the message of Dr Paul. It has painted him as a extremist, a crack pot who is not to be trusted. For others, being the object of bias just makes them all the more determined to get the word out about the real Dr Paul, the one devoted to freedom, family, and country.

For me, I cannot say. I am not one, after all is said and done, to believe in chance at all. I believe in providence, that God will work out all things according to His purpose. That said, when faced with the clarity of this bias against Dr Paul, I admit I am filled with righteous indignation, an indignation that drives me all the more to further support his campaign with all that I am. And perhaps this very bias will be used as a way the American people will wake up to see how far this country has strayed and how desperately it needs to return to the ideals of God given rights, freedom, and the constitution.