Share
 

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

WRITERS WANTED – Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills.
– Mugsy

I just finished watching “NOW” and “Bill Moyer’s Journal” on PBS Friday night.

Ron Paul was the subject of NOW, and how the campaign owes its surprise success to the grassroots, even comparing it to the Dean campaign of 2004.

Watching all the apoplectic Paul supporters cheering, waving signs and swooning at the mere mention of his name, I wondered just how much do these people REALLY know about politics and what a Paul Presidency could do to the country. Almost on cue, they noted that the man that helped Paul raise 4 of his record 5 million “in one day” had “never voted before the age of 37” (the 2006 election).

On the next program, Bill Moyer’s discussed the subject of “Media Consolidation”, which made me think of an interesting conundrum for Paul supporters:

“Where does Ron Paul stand on media consolidation?”

I scoured the Net for a while but found no answers. If he sticks to his Libertarian principles, he’d oppose government regulation, perhaps even disbanding the FCC, resulting in fewer restrictions and unabated media consolidation (the “free market” at work). Yet, ironically, “media consolidation” is probably one of the primary reasons why Paul must depend so heavily on New Media. And I’d suspect that Paul’s supporters are more the type that would prefer MORE diversity in the media than less… the very adverse outcome a Paul presidency would likely result in.

If Paul is *opposed* to greater media consolidation, that would demand greater government regulation and *more* government oversight. It would mean maintaining yet another government program that has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the government or national security. I don’t see that happening.

So my question again to any Paul supporter that might be lurking is: “Where does Ron Paul stand on media consolidation?

My next question: “Where does he stand on Net Neutrality?” Think about where the Paul campaign (and its ENORMOUS dependency on the Internet community) would be if government didn’t stop telecom companies from selling off bandwidth to the highest bidder?

Share