This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Where the Heck is Ron Paul?
By Wolf Richter www.testosteronepit.com
It struck me this morning (well, it struck me many times before, but this morning it was just too much). I was listening to NPR's Morning Edition. The report (listen here) on tonight's GOP debate covered just about everything you can cover in four-and-a-half minutes: The debate's focus on the economy, deficit, tax reform, and entitlements; Sarah Palin's and Chris Christie's exit from the race; Herman Cain's from-the-outside strategy; Mitt Romney's 25% ceiling; and of course his “Mormon problem” as raised by Rick Perry—“this is something we're watching,” said Mara Liasson, NPR's national political correspondent. I mean, come on. She also spent some time on how Perry is preparing for the debate to make up ground he lost in the last three debates. OK, great, we need to know this.
But where the heck is Ron Paul?
He is the one who did well in those debates. He won the most recent straw poll. He raised $8 million in the last three months from over 100,000 supporters. He is not some Tom, Dick, and Harry. He is a real candidate, unlike Palin, who dropped out, but he doesn't even get mentioned as a participant.
You don't need to be a supporter of him to be outraged. Even a Perry supporter or an ardent Democrat who listened to this report would want to know that there is a legitimate candidate named Ron Paul who will participate in the debate, and who will, if past record is any indication, do well. A democracy needs accurate news coverage to function properly. And when coverage fails so miserably time and again, we need to ... do more research.
So the Wall Street Journal ran a longish front-page piece this morning, “Debates Take Candidates for a Bumpy Ride.” But Paul is not mentioned. Not even in a side bar. He just doesn't exist.
And the New York Times? Well, it ran a front-page article, “Five Things to Watch for in the G.O.P. Debate.” And only towards the bottom, it forces itself to mention Paul, but in a parenthetical remark between dashes: "Mrs. Bachmann is likely to be joined by the others on the stage — Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum — in assailing Mr. Obama's administration...."
In yesterday's article on the debate, the NYT doesn't mention Paul at all in the text. He is relegated to an info box on the left sidebar under “Participants.”
And when the NYT does mention Paul prominently, it's because there is no way of avoiding it without giving up any pretense of impartiality: “Ron Paul Wins Conference Straw Poll, to No One's Surprise” (article). But rather than discussing his ideas, it describes how that victory was contrived by busing in tons of college students.
And a shocker. On October 5, the NYT reported on the fund-raising status in a fairly long article, published at 9:33 am. It discusses Perry's $17-million haul, other candidates, and even President Obama. Missing? You guessed it.
Somebody must have raised a ruckus. And so at 1:52 pm, four hours and twenty minutes after the original article, the NYT ran a short article on Paul's $8 million he raised from over 100,000 donors. A forced after-thought that must have left the editors a bitter taste in their collective mouths for the rest of the day.
The WSJ and NYT are the largest newspapers in the country, but the list goes on ad infinitum. Why can't they report on Paul's ideas? They report on the ideas of just about all other candidates. Why can't they at least include him in their coverage of our democratic processes? They don't have to praise him or agree with him. Or are they afraid of his ideas?
His opposition to the Fed might be part of it. The heavily leveraged companies that own the status-quo media outlets—Fed-billions recipient GE, Murdoch's News Corporation, the New York Times Company, etc.—must have access to unlimited flows of essentially free money to keep their empires afloat. Whatever their reasons, their boycott further tarnishes what little remains of their reputations as reliable new sources.
Which is a shame. In a democracy that wants to be vibrant, all major candidates deserve the attention of the news media, and not just of the blogosphere.
Running up deficits and printing trillions to monetize them can't create a healthy economy. Yet, inexplicably, it's what the status-quo media continue to propagate: When False Premises Become Economic Policy.
Wolf Richter www.testosteronepit.com
»
- advertisements -
I've made up my mind. I will vote for Ron Paul. The rest of you can do what you will.
Ron Paul wants to give a troll the right to be a troll. (And he won't open up w/ the M240's either - not for just being a troll.) So if you want to be a troll... vote for Paul and then troll away, dream baby.
The Jew World Order can't have Ron Paul, and Zero Hedge will probably censor this comment. How fair is that? The 1% are Jews, almost entirely, and they own the media.
Uh, no. What about Russel Simmons, and the asshat that invented BET, or Jamie Dimon, or Jeetner, or Obummer? It's about money, plain and simple, not just race. I know plenty of poor jews, blacks, whites, and everything else. Not all jews are zionists, just like not all Christians are asshats like Sarah Palin or Rick Perry. How many people would Jesus execute?
Jamie Dimon and Geithner are Jews, you know that Hasbara.
If ZH censors comments, it's hard to imagine what they are. I read a long screed on here about some dude having a fetish for taint boils.
Lotta trolls and shitstains on this thread. Odd. Not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlKcPNcQlSc&feature=colike
Black THIS out! October 19th!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/pages/mbpledgebto.html?pid=1011
despite the national socialist president currently occupying the whitehouse, the neocons are still in control BO included and RP just doesn't fit the mold prescribed by the muscular foreign policies that have been planned by the elite globalist banking puppeteers, who by the way also own the mainstream media. as long as the masses of sheeple can be manipulated into bread and cirrus, their will be no change in the direction of moving and consolidating the world into the NWO. In the meantime put away ample supplies of food, barterable goods and guns for the days that have already been written into the book of life.
The whitehouse burned.
Now it's just a taxpayer funded whorehouse off k street.
Record bonuses and a blow job comin right up!
despite the national socialist president currently occupying the whitehouse, the neocons are still in control BO included and RP just doesn't fit the mold prescribed by the muscular foreign policies that have been planned by the elite globalist banking puppeteers, who by the way also own the mainstream media. as long as the masses of sheeple can be manipulated into bread and cirrus, their will be no change in the direction of moving and consolidating the world into the NWO. In the meantime put away ample supplies of food, barterable goods and guns for the days that have already been written into the book of life.
I think the reason Ron Paul gets little to no traction is because of two things. I agree with his stance on abolishing the fed and all that Bernanke represents. Unfortunately not alot of people understand the Federal Reserve role in this economic mess we are in and therefore think of him as nutty. Let's face it most people's eyes glaze over when you talk about the Fed.
Number two his stance on it being ok for Iran to have a nuclear weapon for me is a bridge too far. I would not mind us getting out of everyone's business but this is an area where the US must be engaged. In fact I wonder if Obama is sleeping on the job when it comes to this potential crisis.
>it being ok for Iran to have a nuclear weapon
Where did he say that?
In a live debate about two months back.
ok neocons, repubs, democrats, israelis, if you truly believe iran should not have a nuclear weapon (but they are in fact developing one) why the hell aren't you taking out their program? huh???
don't tell me it's because iran will close off the world's oil supply in the straits of hormuz because once they get a nuclear weapon we'll have an even bigger problem with that.
c'mon geniuses, what's your answer?
What are they going to do then? Eat their oil?
that is not what he said....misquoting ....just like the establishment MSM
Why wouldn't Iran want the bomb?
It will keep you from INVADING THEM like almost every other country in the middle east.
RP is right. Stop fucking meddling. Stop assassinating people you don't like. Stop being a bunch of hypocrites.
Re: Number Two.
What do you want us to do? Bomb them? Their facilities are bunkerbuster-proof. Troops? Iraq squared? Not to mention pissing off China.
If pointing a couple of dozen/score/hundred nukes at these guys is not going to discourage them, what then to do?
Please, tell me what foreign policy is going to resolve this.
It's because Ron Pauls Ass is not as sore as the rest of the candidates.
Who the heck is Ron Paul? Simple, he's a joke. He says USA responsible for 9/11 and that Iran is no threat. Hopefully in tonight's debate someone will have the guts to confront him on this. Especially today that a Iranian plot was discover to asassinate the Saudi ambassador on U.S. Soil.
On economics, he's right on disbanding the FED and other traditional Libertarian ideas. On foreign policy: no way, Jose. He shows himself naive, confused, and a bit old.
Yes, a true assassination attempt in America, where all grunt work is contracted out to mexican labor. Has America gotten so lazy that people won't hire hard working American scumbags to kill people?
That was damn funny. Can't believe you got junked.
That was damn funny. Can't believe you got junked.
The wars are funded with prison bonds. Read Jean Keating's Prison Treatise. The wars are all for profit, and the funding can be stopped with an educated jury pool.
I hope Sanitorium confronts Paul, I love that goofy clueless look Rick makes while listening to Ron's answer!
Livermore Jim wants more wars for Israel, even though he won't send his own kids. That's for goyim.
Yeah, because obviously, bombing the shit out of people always works to make friends.
Just look at how Europe welcomed Hitler when he bombed them. Or how many people utterly hate and want to destroy Switzerland. Those pacifist fuckers.
If you play the bully, people get pissed off they will plot and scheme to take the fucking asshole bully out of the picture.
Livermore Jim this one's for you, What IF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&list=FLDqTwQ_Aj90G1wgtmXVbQxA...
Jim...you're a "good german"...no doubt about it.
You could do the Republican and MSM talking points, or you could apply yourself and research what Ron Paul is saying.
It takes people a few years to realize that what he is saying is true.
Check back in a couple of years.
Ron Paul is simply a senile old coot whose time never was and never will be. Unfortuantely he leans toward anarchy which explains his appeal on Zerohedge. Iran recently echoed his sentiments that killing Awlaki was 'unconstitutional,' and are probably funneling money into his campaign. What better spokesperson could they or other terrorist organizations possibly have????
Dude Liver Jim you're on the kill list. A drone is probably already circling overhead. Why? BC you have a beard goddamnit. You're a damn bearded terrorist and you'll pay in hell for that. Now all you other damn bearded terrorists better shave or you know what!
and you LivermoreJim are simply another American who cant handle the truth
you are an abject imbecile
no, he's not real--he's just a plant to keep the comments coming.
Terrorism is always false flag. Always has been. Fearing the middle east only makes you more of a nationalist. Nationalism is dangerous. The most dangerous thing about Iran is that their president knows the truth about the military industrial complex and 9-11, and isn't afraid to talk about it. If the Iranian pres spoke english, the cia would have killed him by now just to shut him up about 9-11.
We're all terrorists. That is why there is a fucking domestic joke war on terrorists. Straight from the house of Bush 100% on accident.
All fucking lies from rich liars. Every one.
I think this might be an example of cognitive dissonance. Why people don't know why RP is being ignored. Dem or Rep, doesn't mean shit. I think Limbaugh must know better, but he just seems almost old fashioned in his conservative dogma. If the globalists haven't vetted the candidate from either party, he ain't gettin' anywhere. Perry has been vetted but he just has a phony image that is coming apart. Don't know if Romney has been vetted, but he is corporate shark and neocon enough to be a favorite. Cain is kickin' ass because he's a Fed insider AND a corporate shark with the right connections. On the other hand BO is vetted but he is just an incompetent ass, and a bigger phony. I say watch out for Hillary. She is vetted and has cred around the world and will take us down even faster then BO could dream of. I say fine, then we can start the rebuiding.
how true, the best way6 to combat is to write letters to the papaers pointing out their gross errors. it's rather clear they are doing all the can to get rid of Paul. yet it's so funny, because Perry who wasn't even in a week becomes the favorite. the elites of both parties can't stand the idea that the people wouldn't choose one of their choices. shows hte control over our electoral process
I think Ron Paul should drop out of the race and head up the revolution instead - before it's co-opted by another outside force. He could lead the OWS movement with emphasis on End The Fed. It could become his official base. Presidents have no power anyway. Ron Paul is better than the office that has deteriorated into a puppet show.
The tide is turning and the 99% are looking for a leader they can get behind. If he abandons party politics now, we could see a new force arise in numbers that would take the system down. And he has a clear plan for going forward.
He would have more power for change as a non-partisan, outside the current system.
Disobey.
"A democracy needs accurate news coverage to function properly". Where is this democracy you're, talking about? I look around and I don't see it. ???
Get a loan. You will see it clearly.
Bliss of false assumptions and the right/left paradigm. If you missed it here's an excellent read by Brandon Smith.
http://www.alt-market.com/articles/115-circus-clowns-and-sideshow-freaks
Great message: Why are the media afraid of Ron Paul's ideas? Spread the word.
Because the establishment is afraid of Ron Pauls ideas, and the media are a tool of the establishment.
The Republicans are shitting sharp bricks and drooling with jealousy over the genuine energy and enthusiasm Ron generates from his knowledgeable supporters. Nothing scares the neocons more than a genuine peace monger.
Ron will have his shot at the presidency when the economy crashes and someone is needed to dismantle the empire. He will be the only one with any credibility. Austrian economic theory will triumph over Keynesian nonsence.
6 days until Black Monday
Unfortunately, RP may be gone by then.
At this point I honestly don't give a damn who the next U.S. president is. I'm far more interested in who will replace Bernanke, Geithner, and Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy - and I don't get to vote on any of them. Democracy my ass.
And now that Perry stepped all over his tongue in the last debate the "media" (owned by the owners of the fed) has escalated Cain as a front runner. Ex-federal reserve governor, Enron enabler, SPP/NAU architect who believes states have the ability to overturn the 2nd amendment and we can fix everything with more taxes, is being pushed as a "constitutional conservative" and has been anointed as a "chosen one".
Ron will get no more than 3 minutes to speak tonight at the debate.
The senior population who does not understand the media is all propaganda at this point, and only watch TV, must not be allowed to hear Ron speak truth and that only he has a plan to save their precious social security and medicare. They must not be allowed to understand that only Ron actually understands the economy, and how to fix it if it is not already too late.