

Ron Paul, media un-sensation (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

That didn’t happen. The feel on Tuesday night was classic security-conscious post-9/11 Washington, heavy on barricades, police vehicles, and uniformed muscle.

Against that bleakness, a handful of Ron Paul supporters stuck out. They huddled at the corner of 18th and E Streets NW, equipped with bumper stickers and some signs. With little traffic whizzing by and almost no pedestrians to be cornered, though, the Paulites talked politics.

And, with almost no prodding, media.

These guys — and, yes, they were almost all guys — have a way of making a hired media critic feel like a federal budget line item — redundant and useless, of course. ’Cause they know the Ron Paul media narrative, interview by interview, debate by debate.

They know about the Jon Stewart satire of the media blackout prior to the candidate’s strong showing in the Iowa caucus; they know about the 89 seconds; they know what Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren regarding who can whine about the media; they know about Aldous Huxley, too — whatever connection the author may have with Paul’s candidacy.

All that knowingness is the point, as the huddle of Paulites explained. Following the candidate is a process of enlightenment that involves listening to him, wondering what on earth he just said, and looking up the source material. It’s that very research, they say, that the media just isn’t performing.

J.D., a 30-year-old from Arlington, put it this way: “My recommendation for the media is to step out of their shoes. Where they went to school, they probably didn’t teach what that man knows,” said J.D., referring to Paul. J.D. sounded frustrated as he described consuming articles and news segments on Paul’s views. “Too often, when you read a writeup, they leave something out,” he says. Others nodded.

The trouble with that viewpoint is that it invites charges that you’re elitist, charges that J.D. and the others squelched. “The way [Paul] builds his positions, it’s from such a wide base that not a lot of people have the pieces” to put it all together, said J.D. Oh, here’s where Huxley comes in: “It’s like Aldous Huxley — we succumb to our forms of entertainment.”

Despite the media’s focus on entertainment, its shallowness, and its inability to illuminate Paul’s brand of politics, we still need it, said the guys. Nineteen-year-old Bret Hollister noted that he had about a thousand friends on Facebook “and I know eight of them.” If he posts something on his page, “how many people are going to take my opinions seriously?”

Brian McMullen, 26, nodded and offered his own example of why the Paulites’ web capabilities alone won’t get them where they need to go. “The 9-11 truthers are on the Internet,” he noted.

Over nearly an hour of discussion, the group offered a number of recommendations on how coverage of Paul could improve:

1) Stop ignoring Ron Paul;

2) Keep Rick Santorum from “coughing and interrupting” — McCullen’s words — every time Paul gets a question at a debate;

3) Highlight the fact that Paul is more of a budgetary hawk than the other candidates — that he wants to cap and cut spending;

4) End all the gotcha journalism and go deeper on the issues;

5) Listen to Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough and Sean Hannity — those folks have given Paul a serious look, according to Paul supporter Gary Kraiss, a 24-year-old media-placement operative.

6) “He’s a tool,” said McMullen in reference to Bill O’Reilly, a Paul critic.