Ron Paul is one of the few politicians championing liberty who backs up his words with actions. He consistently receives a perfect score from New American magazine on its Freedom Index, because he always votes with the US Constitution. According to the latest poll, Paul is more popular among Independents than Obama or any other GOP candidate. Yet, he will undoubtedly face opposition from both the Republican and Democratic establishments and their underlings.
Some far-sighted left-wing smear artists have already done what their demented apostolate wants them to do: find a hair-brain, knee-jerk reason to write-off the Pauls. The cockamamie reason they've chosen is (surprise) racism*. They've found a way to label Ron Paul and his son racist.
Maddow did so by revealing that Rand Paul wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act (without explaining the whole of Rand's libertarian rationale, of course).
A few months ago, CNN re-aired a piece it did 2008 about some obscure Ron Paul supporter(s) who ranted against blacks in a Ron Paul Newsletter from the '90s. The strange thing was that CNN re-aired it in 2010 as if the story had just broke, and it did so right after Ron Paul got majority vote at CPAC. Obviously, CNN wants you to think Paul is racist, and will probably re-air the clip whenever Paul gains ground. Intelligently debating the Pauls on their libertarianism appears to have been too difficult for the left-wing media. Smearing is just so much easier.
Thus far, Rand Paul seems to be an easy target for smear artists. Whether it be George Stephanopolus, NPR's Robert Siegel, or MSNBC's Maddow, Rand Paul seems unable to avoid their carefully crafted tricky questions meant to make him give answers that horrify outrage-prone, undereducated leftists. Rand will always have to contend with left-wing smear artists' prejudice that he is "guilty before innocent."
No doubt, the news networks will search far and wide to find, say, some skinheads who support Ron Paul and then will continually try associate him with them. Of course, Obama's evil supporters such as Bill Ayers, the New Black Panthers, and Irreverend Wright will be presented as if they are totally unrelated to Obama--with the defense of "guilt by association" given.
If the Pauls can withstand the carefully concerted propaganda of the corporate Left-Wing and Neocon media, then they, Ron in particular, will still have some hoops to jump through.
For one, Ron Paul is an isolationist, and many loyal Republicans are staunchly pro-Israel. Paul may be able to gain their acceptance if he names a pro-Israel vice presidential candidate or if he espouses some pro-Israel views, but in doing so, he may alienate some of his anti-war libertarian supporters, and, for that matter, some of his Independent supporters. Peter Schiff would be a good vice presidential candidate--who's probably at least a little pro-Israel.
Also, not all fiscal conservatives buy in to Austrian Economic theory (of which the Pauls are adherents). Many popular conservatives take a more monetarist view. This ideological difference manifests itself in some fiscal conservatives' reluctance to do things like audit the Fed. One such conservative, the popular Pat Toomey, has sidestepped questions about Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed.
Additionally, Ron Paul may not be the best candidate for people who like vociferous "captivators" like Obama who mesmerize audiences with loud, proud rhetoric. Paul just doesn't come across as the type of guy to do that. Moreover, whenever Paul answers some ridiculous accusation vaulted at him by, say, FOX news or Wolf Blitzer of CNN, he always answers with a tone of voice that makes him seem, well, like someone trying to prove he's not crazy. At 1:50 through the video below is a good example:
In the video above, Paul's words are very well chosen, but the intonation of his voice isn't the type of commanding tone to which hero-worshipers gravitate. The sad fact is that some people vote for candidates by virtue of how confident they sound, not how well they argue. This bodes badly for Ron Paul.
Finally, Ron Paul hasn't the support of Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, FOX News, or of many other conservative media. Because these people and networks hold so much sway, Paul may need support from a good many of them to win over the Republican base in 2012. He may be able to get Michael Savage if he pledges to be pro-Israel. However, Beck, Levin, Hannity, and FOX News have tried to cast Paul as a fringe radical, and it seems pretty unlikely that they'll do otherwise in 2012. In the first half of the video below, Joel Skousen covers the media's treatment of Paul in the 2008 primary race.
The next video offers analysis of FOX News's and Michelle Malkin's attempt to associate Ron Paul with the 9/11 truther movement.
The challenges faced by Ron Paul are certainly daunting, but are not insurmountable. The strongholds held by Neocons and the goons of the corporate Left are built on sand. What Paul needs is not just massive education efforts concerning liberty philosophy and free-market economics conducted by groups like FEE, SFL, etc., but a more palatable cultural movement. A movement that is not behind him per se, but behind Liberty Herself.
For this, Paul and Liberty need something powerful. And I say, one powerful way to unite people is through music. (To be continued...)
*For many of our friends on the Left, anyone who opposes any government program that purports to help black people is racist a priori. The only thing left to do is illustrate how the person in question is racist--the actual effectiveness of the government program be damned. That is the tactic.