This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 was wrong... I admit it... they gave Ron 4 minutes after allowing the other "candidates" to steal Ron's platform.
You are just noticing it is crooked as hell?
Limbaugh does not mention him either, very telling.
Limbaugh?? Isn't that, like, stinky cheese?
A cheese laced with pills for shills......
He represents the biggest challenge to the Status Quo... Voting for any of the other candidates (Dems or Rep) is a vote for the same thing - two sides of the same coin. The fact that he is not mentioned shows how dangerous he is to the Status Quo... No worries - his absence says far more than if he were mentioned... I'm glad - it shows in living color how biased all MSM outlets are... it's so blatant that it cannot be ignored... Go Ron Paul!!!
The whole Democrat/Republican thing is a show.
The elites use that dichotomy as theatre to make the 99%ers thinking they have some say. They do not.
Barack Obama will be re elected. It is predetermined by the elites who own the society. The Repubs' job is to continue trotting out personalities that can hold the people's interests until the votes are in.
It is an "easy" distraction that lasts years now.
Ron Paul doesn't get a hearing because he is not a cast member.
No sitting president has ever been re-elected during a recession, let alone a Great Depression, so I'd say that Obama has no chance of re-election, and they know it. If he's getting billions in funding, it's to keep the left-wing voters from looking outside of the 2 parties.
The Repub lineup, other than RP, is so revolting that there is no doubt in my mind that they are meant to make us feel all the more thankful when RP 'miraculously' wins the preliminaries and then 'miraculously' wins the election. RP is not being ignored by the mainstream: the mainstream (and ZH) keeps talking about him being ignored... Can't any of you spot the Orwellian doublespeak?
Just like Obama was the underdog because he's black, RP is now cast as the underdog because he's 'anti-establishment' in his talk. Our psy-ops masters know we like to root for the underdog and that we like to think we are getting what they don't want us to have...
"RP is not being ignored by the mainstream: the mainstream (and ZH) keeps talking about him being ignored... Can't any of you spot the Orwellian doublespeak?"
Old media ignore him daily and mention the fact that they're ignoring him about once every two months.
"Our psy-ops masters know we like to root for the underdog and that we like to think we are getting what they don't want us to have..."
And this happened when? You say it like it's SOP. Let's see an example. I know it's good psyops, but unless you're talking about more wealth transfers, you've got nothing. The statist establishment has won every battle.
Note that FDR was elected once we were already well into the Great Depression. At this point in 2011, the stock market has not yet lost most of its value ("stocks are up!") and the pundits don't yet 'know' if we are back into a depression or not.
That being said, it seems I was mistaken in my statement above, nonetheless. Looks like you can get re-elected during a Great Depression, but you have to time it right: you can't have things tank while on your watch!
I don't think much of anyone out there wants to see Obama re-elected: he's proven himself a liar through and through. My main point is: let's look outside the 2 main parties, shall we? Why limit our choices to the pukes they present us? Can't we vote for anyone else?
The pundits are so fucking confused that they actually think we "recovered" after the crash of 2008. They don't know their collective head from a hole in the ground.
Follow the money...Dr. Paul gets his from us, not those deep pockets that are paying for Perry and Romney.
If voting actually made a difference, it would be illegal.
"the livestock are allowed to *choose* between certain farmers the investors provide, but it's not a real choice. the livestock are not given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free."
http://red-pill.org/the-matrix/meaning-philosophy/#matrixmetaphor
Holy shit, that was profound - and true. I might have that printed on a bumper sticker.
Dr. Paul should get out his camcorder and head down the the Occupy NYC event for a day or two. Free press for his campaign, something the press cannot ignore, lots of impressionable young voters, and it would be easy as pie to talk those folks into camping out in front of the FED with Dr. P positioned front and center. There are more than a few libertarians in the square right now, why not?
Ron Paul is all about calming people down and making them think that the problems are not so severe that we need to revolt: according to him, it's complicated and byzantine, but the solution is just to vote for him - as if a single person can fix it, be they president or anything else!
RP is a guy who is supposedly fighting the system, and clearly he has failed all along, but does that ever register in his consciousness and result in a different approach? Nope. You'll never hear him call for revolt or protest, 'cos in fact he is the ultimate insider, the ultimate establishment gate-keeper.
In any case, he likely knows the type of reaction he would get at OWS: he would be boo'ed, 'cos none of them want to hear from a Republican or a Democrat, 'cos most of them know that both are tools of the establishment.
Paul has said repeatedly that we're in danger from our government, that the government wants to promote violence so it can clamp down on our remaining liberties, and has acknowledged the FEMA camps. What an establishment shill he is.
If you're really Mr. Revolution, why not start one? Or are you just revolting against the nearly perfect and pure-hearted not being good enough for you? Please don't take this the wrong way, but you're an even bigger tool than your RP bashing buddy, above. Maybe you two can work out some kind of Ron Paul sex doll thing to do together, to get out your frustrations. Maybe you'll find love.
He did call for a revolt/protest in '08 and hundreds of thousands of people marched on D.C.
He's the only candidate who's said what's in store for us will be worse than the Great Depression and to prepare for it.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He ran as a Libertarian in 88 and spent all his money just trying to get in the debates. He's playing the Republican game so he can at least be heard.
You're an ignorant troll. F you!
I'm not a Troll: I am simply seeking the truth. I have never heard RP call for protests, and instead I only see clips of him calming people down. Do you have links to him calling for revolt in '08?
He's playing a game alright, but I think it is foolish to assume he's playing it on your behalf. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust any politician who won't say the truth about 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYSKCfsLuuE
I also think it is foolish to believe that a single man (president or not) can defeat the massive conspiracy that besets us. If RP is true to his image, then he'll end up murdered like JFK.
Regardless, I'd like to see discussion of politicians outside of the 2 main parties. Why do we focus on the Repubs/Dems, when we know only too well how they are a bunch of sellouts? Why are we comparing RP to them? Of course he'll look great, comparatively, but that doesn't mean much when Gingrich is your measuring stick...
MSM brushes off RP as a "nutcase" who doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Given what I've seen & heard in the debates so far, and the outright abandonment Obama has shown his base (who are currently in the streets), they just might be wrong on this one.
Not that I'm a BIG fan but if you want change I'm sure he would try like hell to bring it.
If you agree with me that collapse is becoming unavoidable, don't despair, prepare! http://www.collapsenet.com/262.html
How many have seen the History Channel piece on gold in Fort Knox? Pretty convincing that there really isn't any; furthering another RP meme.
as i read this DR. Paul is hovering as a banner ad at the top of the page.
ron paul 2012.
... I can't do a shit, it's not my peace of cake, I live on the lowest deck of €utanics ....
BUT - I do spam with RP wherever I can, just telling the EU-snobiety that there is a man who can't be thrown on the same pile of garbage as GOP/Dems banksters servants.
Ain't much, but I just hope someone googles for his voting record.
I'ma guessin' that Google knows where u been hangin' out. Just a thought. Ned
Maybe the US has had enough with presidents named "Ronald".
You mean them?
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6095/6235359887_e980df125a_z.jpg
I suggest that was your first clue.
- Ned
+1 Soros paid good money to influence their coverage.
Divide By Zero is right - do any of you remember that Soros had given NPR (or maybe the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) a small fortune in order to hire 'journalists' who would 'shape' the news. Guess what? Those 'journalists' are now shaping the news.
NPR? CPB? WGBH here in Boston (well, in Cambridge) has rather palatial digs vs. the paid broadcasters.
Well, might be true, but no one is listening to them.
- Ned
Black this out moneybomb on 10-19
Pledge now: http://blackthisout.us2.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=98cc83fd9eac4e420618dd259&id=ad70c79e33
Yellow Jourrnalism by omission.
If you're listening to NPR, Fox News, ABC, CBS or reading the WSJ or NYTimes, you deserve to be misinformed. Who the HECK reads those anymore?? I gave up my Wall Street Journal subscription like 4 years ago and haven't missed a thing. In fact, I'm even more informed with better info.
You're forgetting that what matters is: Ron Paul gets facetime on ZeroHedge. Does Dick Berry? How about Sarah Palin, does she get proper reporting on ZH?
If RP were being featured on Fox News, he wouldn't be worth dick.
All true, but the vast majority are cluess, brainless sheep. The "important" or "relevant" sources of information are therefore insufficient to overthrow the system. That's why revolution is the only possibility, unfortunately.
Ron Paul has been in the establishment since when? You think you would rely on someone like him for a change? Think again.
Here are some sage words for you.
"The problem is all inside your head, she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your lover."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91euERWH2M4
He has never been "in the establishment." They don't call him "Dr. No" for nothing.
And telling people to think, then quoting Paul Simon idiocy? Really?
I'd say you need to think again, as your uninformed opinion is doing you no good. Go read his writings, then tell everyone how he is part of the status quo.
It's all pogaganda if you can think logically. If he's really what he say he is, why he has NOT been fighting the root cause of all of our sufferings? Today every politician is a whore by definition. You can say he's an exception; but, I believe he's allowed to be there saying things that you love to hear. So that they hope there is someone like him you can still masturbate to for the sake of illusion that you still have control. The reality is that you have zero control, I am afraid. The last point of no return was passed back in 1913. Sage words for your comfort here, “To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.”
If you are still struggling with the reality, the following tutorial can help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT4VXF1XJYk
reader2010, if you ever have a chance to meet Ron (or Rand) you'll realize that you're sounding like something that you're describing.
" I believe he's allowed to be there saying things that you love to hear."
Yes, they sat down with him and worked it all out. He can say X, can't say Y. You and the other hack on here criticizing Paul for not legislating through force of will both ride the same short bus to a school for the severely mentally retarded, where you are at the bottom of your class. (no insult to SMRs intended - big hug).
I think they drive the bus.... ( no insult taken) ;)
We are ALL perfectly aware that Ron Paul alone cannot "fix the USSA", much less the world. However, exactly three options remain at this late date in history. Advocates of honesty, liberty, productivity and individualism either work incrementally to gradually implement an honest, ethical world OR fight a bloody, open warfare battle in the streets OR lie down and let the predators-that-be and predator-class complete their plans to utterly and permanently enslave everyone on earth.
I don't give the incrementalism approach much chance - the predators are far too strong and dominant today to make such an approach likely. However, if somehow by amazing events Ron Paul was to become president, the incrementalism approach might have a slim chance to succeed. Those who work to support this possibility should be supported, even if we do not believe they have much chance, because the alternatives are horrific (especially the final and most likely possibility).
The fact is, if Ron Paul is elected president, and everyone can see right out in the open how the predators-that-be and predator-class thwart his every attempt to restore honesty and liberty, this will draw more people into the revolutionary war that must be fought. If you're not ready for the shooting war, then support Ron Paul or get the hell out of our way.
Well, Einstein once famously said, "the defnition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and then expecting different results." Keeping voting and expecting different result each time falls exactly in his definition of insanity. Sorry but we are all fucked.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6118/6233149924_e7f3c62b92_b.jpg
Ron Paul isn't the same thing. He is the only bloodletting-free antidote to the corrupt status quo that I see on the horizon. The rest are phonys. I have followed his career for thirty years and he has integrity. I am an optimist. I believe we can put Ron Paul in the Presidency in 2012 and that we can begin to reverse the socialism and elitist mercantilism, end central banking and military adventurism, reduce government to its Constitutional specifications and restore laissez faire, liberty, honest money and individual rights. These are important things that must happen if we are to avoid serfdom. I will not roll over. I will support liberty. I really doubt that you have taken the time to inform yourself about this man's career. Here's a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul otherwise, Sam Adams suggests:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Well, you might be surprised, but I agree with you. I have never voted, precisely because it would be grossly unethical for me to vote for ANYONE to fill an inherently unethical post. And without a doubt, EVERY position in the federal government qualifies. Thus I do promote and support Ron Paul, because I believe his election might lead to further improvements. And basically, you're right. Either millions of us fight a war against the federal government, or mankind is indeed finished. Thus the problem with your attitude is obvious. When talking about something as important as the permanent enslavement and abuse of mankind by predators, there should be zero question about which choice to make: fight them, or submit to permanent slavery and abuse. If this battle isn't worth fighting, none is. To simply give in to the predators, who are a microscopic minority, is simply revolting and not worth considering. The problem is, few humans realize this.
It's amazing isn't it that Paul, who has done nothing, is touted as some kind of messiah.
All show and no go.
Name one bill that he has moved, authored, fought for that would demonstrate his steel?
Is he still on the special retirement plan that makes him part of the royalty he claims to change?
A hypocrite to put it mildly.
You mistake NO! for "nothing".
HR 1207 Audit the FED.
Go read the sordid history of this one.
Paul fought to put it mildly.
The one project he picked that cannot be done since technically the FED is outside the government.
Those who point to this single impossible task, have no clue about what he could do if he really wanted to change things.
He's a hollow leg.