So do I have this straight? The Right, Big Media, and Big Right Media all thought CPAC merited coverage as a meeting of leaders of a movement they see on the rise. But when Ron Paul decisively wins their presidential poll the vote is labeled a meaningless action, albeit one by the largest number of voters ever at a CPAC meeting, from everyone from the Cantor camp to The Hotline. Do we really think that's the story they'd be telling if a Fox or Beltway Boys darling had won that vote? Must suck to be Ron Paul. He's derided as unserious because he doesn't win contests. And then when he does win contests the votes are necessarily unserious because ... he doesn't fit into the moronically simple boxes and personality puff piece journalism that the Ailes, Todds, Limbaughs and Milbanks insist we view politics through?
Posted by armand at February 22, 2010 08:43 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Media | Politics