Here are two media myths about presidential campaigns:
1. The media covers candidates based on their electability, as measured by polls and donations.
2. If you haven't raised a lot of money, you don't have a chance.
Myth #1 was debunked by Ron Paul. He is set to become the top fundraiser among Republicans this quarter and he isn't getting anywhere near the coverage of Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and at this point Mike Huckabee.
Ron Paul has been raising more money than John McCain for a long time now. Yet, I still see John McCain being discussed as a legitimate candidate for president, albeit one whose chances are shrinking (but at least he's "legitimate" and "credible"). On the other hand, the Ron Paul stories are mainly curiosity pieces. As in, "Isn't that curious how much money that fringe candidate Ron Paul raised?"
The answer you'll get in private from folks in the media is, "But you know he's not going to win!" No, you know that. Apparently, many other people don't agree. And God knows what would happen if the press gave them all equal coverage and pretended to be anywhere near objective when analyzing all of the candidates.
There is far more "fringe candidate" bias in the media than there is liberal or conservative bias. Once the media decides you're a fringe candidate, you better create miracles to overcome that.
Which brings us to Mike Huckabee. What happened, I thought you couldn't be a legitimate candidate if you didn't raise a ton of money? Huckabee raised the paltry sum of $764,000 in the second quarter. He has averaged less than a million dollars in the last two quarters. These are ridiculously low numbers and ... he now leads in Iowa.
Isn't this proof positive that judging candidates by their bankroll is not a credible way of determining their "legitimacy"?
I know that it's hard to give nine people all the same amount of coverage and the press has to make some judgment calls. I just want those judgment calls to be guided by some modicum of reason and evidence, rather than what the conventional wisdom dictates. Because obviously the conventional wisdom is wrong.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
The media black out echoing the plutocrat party bosses by labeling candidates as "fringe" candidates is as effective as Iran's Supreme Council in preventing candidates from having a fair chance to win.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
On another note, Corporate sponsors scare me more than individuals whose views I may find repulsive. It's about power, and I think many of you are missing the boat completely on when and where campaign donors can have an influence on the politician they are supporting.
Anyone who voted in the last primary is in a very small group - those who would vote for a sitting president with no opposition. Nationwide, this was something like 6% of Republican voters. A very small and very biased sample - a.k.a. staunch Bush supporters. So, in many ways, if primary voters are polled, they support the President and are looking for someone like him (Rudy's warmongering - Huckabee's religiosity, Thompson's abortion stance etc.)
So, if a candidate doesn't have the "Bush" characteristics, they don't poll very well. It'll be an interesting contest indeed.
Having dismissed the crazies, we are given our "top tier" candidates (Hillary, Rudy, Obama, Romney). These are friendly to corporate ownership of the federal government and all are acceptable to the media. Conventional wisdom has it that one of these will be president and so we will focus on them. We will be encouraged to choose between them based on whether we want a girl, a nazi, a black guy or a Mormon respectively.
You will hear this media created conventional wisdom proudly repeated on the left and the right. We will spend the next year playing America's favorite game. Red State - Blue State. We will choose a corporatist from the top tier and shun the politicians who want to return the government to the people.
Hang in there Cenk.
The thing they all have in common is an archaic, shallow, unworkable view of society and solutions to its problems. Libertarians had a time where their ideas of virtually no government were practical. That was the 1700s and it's, to a large degree, how this country ran for a long time. But we've grown up since then, because, for one thing, we realized that society needed protection from the consolidated power, ruthless dictates of the few. Evolution leaves some behind.
This is great news indeed. Go Ron!
It's interesting that Ron Paul is the only candidate being judged by a few of his supporters. Democratic candidates are sucking in money from military contractors , war profiteers, and various unsavory interests, but never a peep about them.
It is absurd to expect Ron Paul to do a background check on all of his donors. If racist individuals are giving to Ron Paul, it's not because he's a racist, which is a smear, but rather because they might agree on a few positions.
Ron Paul is threating to really shake up this corrupt system. Attempts at guilt by association, rather than a serious discussion of the issues, are how his foes hope to stop him. Pathetic.
His anti-war stand is based on a completely different set of principles.
He isn't exposing a vein of a Republican left, but rather true conservative values that have been shredded by the neocons and corporatists.
It wasn't too long ago that a "good Republican" would say-
We don't start wars, we finish 'em.
Pre-emption is a radical departure for true conservatives just as it is for liberals, but that doesn't mean it's for the same reasons.
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
So what, again, was racist about his issues page on racism? The 'good intentions' of government policy today have not panned out. We still, unfortunately, have racism in our country.
"Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations."
Stewardship for racism lies with the individual because it is a matter of the heart. It does not lie with the government. The stewardship of the government is to provide and preserve liberty, a function it is most capable of doing.
BTW, thank you for the article. The MSM is so 'last century.' They were the 'middle man' of information. The internet has cut them out to a great extent. I can get my information from original resources themselves whether it be personal, business, or government websites.
McCain actually seems to have a decent chance now with so many of the other candidates on a self-destructive path.
The media laughed at Huckabee until he showed an ability to appeal to a portion of the electorate that could be serious as things go on. I don't see anything wrong with that.