On Tuesday, Texan Ron Paul held on to his seat in the U.S. Congress, when he defeated Republican primary challenger Chris Peden. There is no Democratic opponent running against Paul.
Paul won his 11th term in a landslide victory – 70% to Peden’s 30%.
Peden was a de facto representative of the neoconservative faction of the Republican Party, who had had enough of Ron Paul running his mouth about genuine conservatism during the presidential campaign. They claimed Paul was a “liberal” and Peden was a “true conservative,” yada, yada, yada. Which is sort of like “punk” princess Avril Lavigne questioning the punk rock credentials of Johnny Rotten.
Regardless, the neocons had hoped Peden would take Paul out of the game completely, and even distorted, misreported and downright-lied about the political dynamics of the Paul/Peden race, to create their preferred outcome. It didn’t work, obviously.
Am I being a “kooky,” conspiracy-minded Ron Paul supporter by making such accusations? You decide.
Thanks to Johnny Kramer at lewrockwell.com for compiling this:
“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.”
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.”
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.
At no point during this campaign did Peden even come close to outpolling Paul. It simply never happened. Ever. In journalism, suggesting otherwise would be called “unsubstantiated.” To a man on the street it would be called “lying.”
Simply more “fair and balanced” reporting by the establishment media?
Congratulations Ron. At least we’ve still got one honest man in the U.S. Congress.