A very good post, Reg, as usual.

I forgot to pay my tuition though.  I'll have that to your registrar asap.  :)    ****

You are right about the longshots not having party support, and so therefore (tautologically) not receiving support from their party.  It makes sense, without relying on lizardine bloodline conspiracy theories.

However, I still find it irritating that the news channels aren't sued for false advertising when they continue to report Thompson and Giuliani as front-runners but give Paul no or nearly no shrift at all.

When hand-picked media darlings repeatedly score lower in the early primaries than did a longshot, well, to me, that's news!  It ought to be run as a full-fledged story, not hidden in the back pages between tales of people who paint with their feet or who have a two-headed goat.

After the South Carolina debates, Ron Paul got 35% of the polled support for "who won the debate," far more than did any other candidate.  How did Fox report this, the result of their own poll?  They chuckled, then never mentioned it again. Had Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, or even a pirate received that percentage, is there any doubt that it would have made headlines?

So . . . maybe the lizard bloodlines we ought to be examining are those of the news reporters.  You know, I think I saw Sean Hannity eat a fly the other day . . .

Herring405

****please note, though I haven't said so in a while, I always do enjoy your astute analysis of the situation, and in fact might place you even higher than a pirate on my list of front-runners.