What About Ron?

According to the many media sources, there is now a "top-tier" in the race for the Republican nomination in the hopes of defeating Barrack Obama in 2012. That "top-tier" consists of Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Rick Perry from Texas, and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. When it comes to the this primary, it seems as if Perry, Romney, and Bachmann are getting all of the media's attention. However, the media is ignoring one outspoken opponent who has flown under the radar in both this primary and the 2008 Republican Primary: Ron Paul of Texas. This may come as a surprise to many Americans, but in the Iowa Straw Pole, Paul finished behind Bachmann by less than a percent while leaving Perry and Romney in the dust at the same time. But how come most media sources are so reluctant to convey this to the American public? Is it because his experience as a medical doctor puts him at a disadvantage to Mitt Romney who is notorious for boasting about his experience in the private sector? Could it be that he isn't as young as Bachmann? Or maybe it could be that he doesn't speak with a thick Texas accent like his colleague Rick Perry does? CNN's long time correspondent Jack Cafferty has a better idea as to Ron Paul has become the Republican Party's Ralph Nader:


Although this may be just a tad over the top, Cafferty has the main idea. The primary reason as to why Ron Paul fails to get the media's attention is because he tells the American public what they need to hear. When you watch the "top-tier" candidates on TV, they are overly optimistic and assure the public that they are the answer to our nations problems. Paul on the other hand, speaks to his audience with caution and wastes no time in telling the public about where we have gone wrong in the past other than what Obama has done wrong. He also has no problem with telling what both our nation and our government are doing wrong:


Aside from his pessimistic attitude and his tendency to be blunt, there are other reasons as to why Paul is often ignored. Paul has been a staunch opponent of The War on Terror and the War in Iraq since they were first launched. On his website he states that "Instead of securing our borders, we've been planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression. Within a few short years, we turned Iraq into the world's breeding ground for terrorists." Another war that Paul goes against the Republican norm is his opposition to the much forgotten War on Drugs. While being interviewed by the New York Times in 2008, Paul stated that "The federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you questions policy, you are accused of being pro-drug." On the other end, Paul's opponent Rick Perry open to the idea of sending American troops to Mexico to help battle drug cartels according to the Huffington Post.
Although Paul clearly does go against the Republican norm on these issues, how does it make him less conservative? How can one be viewed as not "conservative" enough when they support the elimination of both the income tax and IRS? I guess if you do not entirely fit the Republican mold and are honest about the state of our country, it is hard to both be recognized and be taken seriously from the media as well as fellow Republicans. As for Paul's chances of winning the nomination, it's a long shot. But who knows? After all, he was able to accumulate $36,739.79 in military donations which is way more than any other Republican nominee.