Last night, Jon Stewart tried to tear the media a new one for ignoring Ron Paul.

Stewart makes a few good points—it’s almost comical the way Fox News and CNN try to ignore Ron Paul—but using the Ames poll and applause at the Fox debates as the metric by which Paul should be taken seriously is, quite simply, dumb as fuck. Paul has a small but vocal army of fans who believe that shouting really loudly at debates and throwing internet polls in Paul’s favor will make a difference. The Ames poll is a bullshit pony show that can be thrown by anyone who spends enough money, which makes it a perfect target for Paul supporters.

I believe that Ron Paul has basically hit his supporter ceiling. He’s far enough to the right (or far enough to the left, I suppose, if you’re looking at him from a different angle) that mainstream voters will never embrace him, even if CNN did a glowing two-hour primetime special on the man. If he were to somehow win the Iowa caucus in January—barring some sort of seismic voter shift, this is not possible, but let’s just say he did—then he would warrant a serious reexamination. But placing second in the Ames poll—which, again, doesn’t really amount to anything except brushing away the most inconsequential of regional candidates—does not mean we have to start taking the fringe seriously. Jon Stewart’s media watchdog schtick is often too simplistic, but this is a rare major misstep on his part: He’s dead wrong about Ron Paul.

9 replies on “Ignoring Ron Paul”

  1. Paul Constant is proves he’s a big ol’ establishment hack time after time. His pandering rhetoric is great for the Stranger reading jello-heads, but I’d like to think the Mercury is above it.
    Kudos to the Daily Show for this story.

  2. I’ve voted for every democrat presidential canidate that was an option in my voting life time, and I like a LOT (but certainly not all!) of what Ron Paul has to say.

    Regardless of my feelings about the guy (or yours), I think it IS a problem that the media chooses who to inform their followers about.

    It’s not CNN, Fox, or Paul Constant’s job to decide for me what politicians I want to hear more about.

  3. Is Constant really that dense? This guy is a professional political reporter?

    Dude, Jon Stewart is a comedian. He was pointing out how absurd it is that certain members of the media want to pretend Mr. Paul does not exist. Just like they want to pretend that the war in Iraq and Bush tax cuts are not responsible for the fucking mess we are in.

    The bit was not only spot on, but damn funny. It succeeded, unlike this stupid blog post by Constant.

    Dead wrong. Do quit your day job, Constant.

  5. The fact that the post two links below is about Michele Bachmann confusing Elvis’ birthday and deathday makes Stewart’s point. You lose Paul.

  6. “…does not mean we have to start taking the fringe seriously.”

    What is Bachmann if not fringe? Are we taking her seriously?

    Ron Paul makes everyone uncomfortable, maybe in a similar way Ralph Nader did, by confronting realities people don’t want to discuss and (gasp!) stealing votes away from establishment candidates.

  7. “Jon Stewart’s media watchdog schtick is often too simplistic, but this is a rare major misstep on his part: He’s dead wrong about Ron Paul.”
    The guy is a fucking comedian, and makes great points. You taking him seriously is the the misstep here.

  8. i think the point of the bit is that the media shouldn’t decide who gets taken seriously, the voters should decide that.

    love him or hate him, ron paul is the one republican candidate that goes outside the comfort zone of fox news talking points. that’s why the media ignores him, because he doesn’t fit into their trope. that’s why the media sucks, that’s why politics suck.

    i don’t know if he should be president, but the way he is being reported is proof that the system is broken.

Comments are closed.