ImPeden Reality
by Johnny Kramer
by Johnny Kramer
DIGG THIS
If anyone doesn't
know, Ron Paul crushed the challenger for his Congressional seat,
neocon Chris Peden, with a 70% landslide victory in Tuesday's Republican
primary.
Ron faces
no Democratic opponent in the November general election, so he has
effectively been returned to Congress.
Chris Peden
Tom
Woods exposed Peden, who's a 43-year-old CPA and Friendswod,
Texas city councilman.
As Tom documented,
Peden told The Galveston Daily News in January 2007, "I have
an immense amount of respect for Ron Paul. Politics has a way of
forcing people to go against their core principles for political
gain. That has never been the case for Ron Paul."
Then, in May,
Peden announced that he was challenging for Ron's Congressional
seat.
It's possible
to admire a person for sticking to their principles even when you
disagree with those principles. So there's nothing inherently wrong
with Peden running against Ron over honest disagreements, as long
as he presents Ron's positions accurately.
But, as Tom
also documented, that's not how Peden ran his campaign; instead,
he deliberately distorted Ron's views using typical, shallow neocon
rhetoric, like saying Ron "blames America" for 9/11 and
that Ron is a "liberal." No master of subtlety, Peden
also hilariously used a professional, smiling portrait of himself
when comparing his positions to Ron's on his campaign site; the
link on the homepage showed Ron making an out-of-context silly face,
while the linked page listing Ron's (distorted) positions showed
Ron with an out-of-context sneer.
The way Peden
suddenly decided to run against Ron only after Ron's presidential
campaign looked like it might succeed – meaning that Ron's focus
wasn't as much on defending his House seat as it would otherwise
be, and that he would abandon the seat if he managed to win the
nomination; and the way Peden flip-flopped from praising Ron to
viciously attacking him – indicates that Peden is a typical opportunistic
politician who will say whatever he has to say, and betray whomever
he has to betray, to attain power.
And his verbatim
spouting of empty neocon talking points indicates that he was probably
drafted into the race by the GOP Establishment to try to get rid
of Ron.
Even his Paulian
rhetoric of belief in "free markets, smaller government, and
individual responsibility" was self-evidently false, just based
on the fact that he was trying to depose the man who has possibly
the best record on those issues of any politician in American history.
The Old
Media
As usual,
the media attempted to carry out their (dying) role as opinion makers
by informing the public that Peden was not only the better choice,
but was a serious threat to Ron. This method, which is often used
by the media, is known in marketing as perception precedes reality;
to spot it, look for statements that are misleading but technically
not lies, or for impressive-sounding statements that are vague and
unprovable.
Here's a random
sampling of some Establishment media stories that attempted to give
readers the mental image of Ron working at his desk with Chris Peden
standing behind him, measuring for drapes.
- Writing
in November in The Hill, a prominent Congressional newspaper,
Texas-based GOP pollster David Hill wrote, "Recent polling
by another Texas Republican pollster confirms that Paul’s electorate
doesn’t appreciate the increasingly leftish libertarian bent of
Paul’s voting record. In the eyes of voters, Paul is now also
wrong to oppose the Patriot Act, off base on energy policy that
affects Texas enormously, and to be faulted for knee-jerk opposition
to the fight against terror in the Middle East.
"The
difference this time is that Paul’s critics have a bona fide
challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative
who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local
elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and
the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, he’ll likely lose to
Peden on March 4. That’ll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move
to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might
try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost
in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought.
Good riddance."
Mistaken predictions
can be forgiven; I wrote in December that Ron was likely to be the
next president, and I couldn't have been more wrong.
But my prediction
was an honest assessment of how I saw the situation at the time,
mainly based on the fact that Ron was raising as much money online
as the Establishment front-runners were raising through various
methods, despite a media blackout of his campaign, and that there
were logical reasons to think that the polls weren't accurately
measuring Ron's support due to their antiquated polling methods.
In contrast,
David Hill's prediction was a distortion of reality based solely
on the convoluted logic – which itself was based solely on undocumented,
anecdotal evidence – that many people in Ron's district – where
Ron has been reelected six consecutive times – suddenly don't like
Ron's positions – positions which hadn't changed. His prediction
also ignored the fact that Peden finished the third quarter of 2007
with $400 on-hand; and that, barring a Ted Stevens-like scandal,
the reelection rate for Congresspersons and Senators is more than
90%.
-
Roll
Call, another prominent newspaper covering Capitol Hill,
ran a one-sided news article in December titled "Ron Paul
in Peril?"; it offered no evidence that Peden had a chance
to unseat Paul.
-
An ABC
News story the day of the primary, similarly titled "Paul
in Peril," described Ron as "fighting for his day
job" and "fighting for his political life," but
also offered no evidence that Peden had the slightest chance
to win.
-
Neocon
news magazine The Weekly Standard ran an article asserting
that Peden was a "serious threat," that Ron's "political
career might suffer a fatal blow," and "Unless the
Ronulans are willing to move to Texas en masse, he's
probably in serious trouble."
-
An article
last month in The American Spectator contended that "Paul
may genuinely be in trouble," that he "isn't acting
like an incumbent who is taking his congressional primary for
granted," that "Paul has faced long odds before,"
implying that he faced long odds in this race too, and "It
is nevertheless jarring to see Paul go so quickly from a presidential
candidate whose campaign was giving likely GOP nominee John
McCain the willies to a congressional incumbent looking over
his shoulder at a little-known local pol. Is a revolutionary
without honor in his own House district?"
The common
thread through all of these articles was the undocumented "evidence"
that Ron was in danger of losing due to his seat due to his presidential
campaign publicizing his views – which haven't changed, and which
he has always been up-front about – to his constituents for the
first time; and that, to a lesser extent, he had neglected his district
by spending too much time running for president.
- Predictably,
The Victoria Advocate and The Galveston Daily News
– two newspapers in the district – endorsed Peden.
From the perspective
of voters, I've never been able to understand the point of political
endorsements, because the only way an endorsement could be effective
is to tip the scale in favor of two virtually interchangeable candidates,
either of whom any one voter would've supported anyway; an endorsement
can't convince anyone who's not a mindless sheep to vote for someone
just based on the endorsement.
For example,
I have confidence in Ron Paul's knowledge and judgment. If he and
I were involved in the LP, and I couldn't decide at the convention
between two presidential candidates who each seemed about as good
as the other, Ron's endorsement of one over the other might sway
me to his choice if the reasoning behind it was convincing to me.
But if Ron dropped out of the GOP race and endorsed McCain, it wouldn't
make me support McCain; it would make me wonder if Ron had suffered
a stroke.
So hardly
any Paul supporters would even consider Peden, and vice-versa.
-
But the
pièce de résistance was a recent (New Media, but
neocon) Pajamas Media story by Roger L. Simon, claiming that
(phantom) "internal polling" by both campaigns showed
Peden with a "double-digit" lead over Ron. This sort
of thing is done frequently in politics, and it's another perception
precedes reality scam.
-
Even in
reporting Ron's win, Roll Call continued to claim that
he had been "endangered" and "vulnerable."
The media's
influence is dying
The media
constantly try to distort reality. Sometimes they succeed; sometimes
they fail. But, thanks to the Internet, the trend is more and more
toward failure.
Their blackout
of Ron's presidential campaign was effective at removing any chance
he had to be president. But Ron accomplished a lot in the past year,
all due to the Internet, and it all would've been impossible just
16 years ago.
And the technology
will continue to advance (for example, it's mind-boggling to think
that video sites like YouTube didn't exist in 2004), young people
who never knew the world without it will continue to be born and
grow up, and old people who don't use it will continue to pass away
So the day
is likely coming when such a media blackout won't succeed.
Fortunately,
even now it's much more difficult for the media to smear someone
who's already well-known and well-liked than it is for them to ruin
an unknown's campaign by ignoring him, so those who tried to cost
Ron his Congressional seat failed.
So be grateful:
although Congressman Paul isn't as good as President Paul, it's
a heck of a lot better than Congressman Peden.
March
6, 2008
Johnny Kramer
[send him mail]
holds a BA in journalism from Wichita State University and is available
for hire as a writer and copyeditor. See his
website.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Johnny
Kramer Archives
|