AP's Selective Memory

"Texas Rep. Ron Paul has made no move to withdraw even though he scores in single digits in voting." - Associated Press, 1/30/08

"Nevada - 1797 of 1797 Precincts Reporting...Paul , Ron...14%" - Associated Press, undated article

"Iowa results...Ron Paul 10 percent" - Associated Press, 1/4/08

GOP Rankings, part 2

Here are the % totals from Iowa + NH:

Romney: 57
McCain: 50
Huckabee: 45
Paul: 18
Thompson: 15
Giuliani: 12
Hunter: 1

'Tardette dances spastically on Ron Paul's grav...

...itas. 'Tardette, who "don’t care about [Ron Paul] one way or the other," have gotten their keyboards damp with bile and copy/paste residue over Ron Paul's showing in Iowa. Because, you know, Paul did so terribly. For one thing, he got barely more than twice the votes of recent national leader Rudy Giuliani. Worse, he only got 37% more votes than polls predicted, merely almost tying two "top tier" candidates. How can Paul and his supporters ever hope to affect American politics if they merely break fundraising records, reintroduce unfashionable ideas to millions, repeatedly put libertarianism in the mainstream spotlight, ignite a new movement on college campuses, dominate online political activism, outperform seven (of eleven) opponents thus far, and so on? Don't they have to rank higher in Iowa to move the country toward accursed individual freedom? It's enough to make a 'Tardette care!

GOP Results So Far (Inclusive Version)

Republican candidates ranked by success through the Iowa caucuses:*

1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. Thompson
4. McCain
5. Paul
6. Giuliani
7. Hunter
8. Tancredo
9. Brownback
10. Tommy Thompson
11. Gilmore
12. Keyes

* as judged by VoxPolitico.com--based on votes then sticktoitiveness

not worthy of consideration

Since I linked below to the Des Moines Register's announcement of their decision to consider Tancredo, for example, but not Ron Paul, in their series of issue-by-issue endorsements, here is the email I sent to them:

Dear Editor:

Ron Paul "didn't make the cut" to even be in the running for the Register's endorsement. That would be unfortunate if he is, in fact, the best candidate.

I must say I'm disappointed and surprised that you would choose to exclude Ron Paul--the only GOP candidate who voted against "the mistaken invasion of Iraq" before it commenced and who is campaigning against it. Nobody forced the Register's editorial board to design a rule that excludes the candidate who is the likely top fund-raiser this quarter, who has been climbing in state and national polls, who has won 24 (non-online) straw polls (including yesterday's by the Republican Party of Virginia), and who has views markedly different from the pack on at least four of the eight issues you outlined. Nobody forced you to include, instead, a candidate who is stagnant and next to last in the polls, who blends in with the mean candidate's views, and who has no significant financial support nor grassroots enthusiasm.

You write that "the deciding factor was time spent in Iowa."

This might be helpful for maintaining Iowa's standing as an early proving ground, but is it the most important basis for deciding who will be in a position to defend or degrade our Constitution? Who will be able to bomb--or not bomb--our "enemy" du jour?

I hope that you will reconsider these unfortunately contorted criteria, and the resulting homogeneous set of candidates, in time to give due consideration to who is credibly advocating the most important principles of our time.

Regards...