Is The Media Actively Erasing Ron Paul From Election Coverage?

While some on our blog (including many regulars who I respect) disagree, I have never hidden my respect for Ron Paul. I have occasional lunches with Paul who is one of the brightest and most engaging minds in Congress. This segment by John Stewart does a great job in addressing the concerted effort to ignore Paul despite his almost winning the recent Iowa straw poll. Even “XXX” got more attention by Associated Press.

Though we do not agree on all issues (and sharply disagree on some), Paul is currently the only candidate (including Barack Obama) who has consistently opposed the wars and spoken out against the rollback on civil liberties. The Stewart segment is worth watching. One would think that an anti-war candidate in the Republican primary would receive overwhelming attention. This is the one guy in either party who is actually challenging the claims supporting these wars — and receiving significant support among Republicans. Yet the mainstream media seems intent on avoiding any acknowledgment that Paul or his GOP supporters exist. Why?

Consider the sharp contrast with Rick Santorum:

98 thoughts on “Is The Media Actively Erasing Ron Paul From Election Coverage?

  1. I like and respect Paul a lot..it’s just that some of his libertarian ideas are too literally individualistic for my tastes. I don’t happen to believe that individuals trump or arise prior to the social group, but rather are a product of it. Some of his ideas strike me as Ayn Randian, which is no doubt how his son got named such.

    By the way are you aware of this :

    http://www.americanselect.org/

  2. One reason he does not want to run as a third party candidate is that he does not want to compromise Rand’s future in the republican party.

  3. For somebody that has no problem with Christan prayer in the school, the Ten Commandments in the court house, thinking the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, refuses to acceptt evolution (instead thinks dinos and humans roamed the planet at the same time), I am not exactly sure how he can be considered bright. He is as bright as Palin and Perry. Don’t let somebody’s charisma cloud your mind, it puts your whole reasoning process in doubt. This no different than your fawning over the Friends of Amanda propoganda.

  4. In the Stewart clip, Paul was at a loss to name a country that is run by his version of libertarianism. I got one : Somalia. Small government, no regulations on business, no taxes (except those collected by warlords), and no Education department.

    I like Paul’s consistent anti-war message but some of his other views are crazy.

  5. Swarthmore Mom and Ishboo have it correct. Paul has one or two issues that I can agree with, but if he is elected women will lose even more privacy rights.

  6. Turley, simply saying he has opposed the wars is not enough. What is his motivation for the opposition? This like when libertarians say Paul is against the drug war. Well no, he is against the federal drug, he has no problem with states making certain drugs illegal. Not only is Paul opposed to all the current wars, he wants the U. S. out of all international NGOs. Even his views on foriegn affairs are bit extreme because of his paleoconservative ideology. His civil liberty record is not that great either as he is against secularism.

    The guy may be a great lunch buddy or golf partner but that is immaterial to the discussion.

  7. There are quite a few loyal Ron Paul admirers in my neck of the woods and they are always complaining about the lack of media attention he attracts. Many of them are former Ayn Rand enthusiasts. They are also all former Republicans who felt betrayed by Bush’s financial and war policies. They were the original subscribers to Paul’s Tea Party philosophy before the Republican Party bastardized the movement. Never in a million years would these friends and neighbors of mine support Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.

    I like the fact that Paul made such inroads into the Republican base especially among the younger voters. I couldn’t support him back in ’08 or now due to the same reasons SwM lists, abortion, gay rights, education and social programs.

    For a republican he is rather rebellious.

  8. I’ll have to echo much of the sentiment expressed here already. I like some of Paul’s individual stances, but on the whole I find him an untenable candidate because of other positions. Even though I think ending the illegal wars is of paramount concern, electing Paul would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

  9. Whatever the merits of any of his positions, Ron Paul has become the symbolic right-wing maverick in the House, just as Dennis Kucinich has become the symbolic left-wing maverick in that body. And the chances are nil that either one of them can ever be elected President.

  10. Mike A.,

    I’ll agree with that statement but with the caveat of “each for their own distinct and different reasons”.

  11. “Mike Appleton
    1, August 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Whatever the merits of any of his positions, Ron Paul has become the symbolic right-wing maverick in the House, just as Dennis Kucinich has become the symbolic left-wing maverick in that body. And the chances are nil that either one of them can ever be elected President.”

    Too bad, they would make a great team. What both these guys have, in contrast to Cheney’s bullshit “gravitas”, is not gravitas at all but something American’s long for: no bullshit integrity.

    Which is one reason that I would prefer to vote for either of these candidates, regardless of any policy preferences of their’s that I disagree with, than vote for yet Barack Obama who will promise one thing, and then obstruct that same thing, while catering to his opposition in a continual bid for re-election.

    (IIRC, Professor Turley represents both of these guys and 8 others in a lawsuit against Barack Obama regarding Libya — or has that suit ended?)

    Kucinich, asked who might be a good running mate, regardless of party and he immediately says… Ron Paul:

    http://www.skepticaleye.com/2011/05/dennis-kucinich-on-ron-paul.html

    Ron Paul, asked who he would vote for for President were he not running, says, … Chuck Hagel in the Rs, and Dennis Kucinich in the Ds.

  12. anon:

    There is no impediment to members of different parties from forming a joint president/vice president slate to run.

    I also like Chuck Hegel, despite the R next to his name.

  13. Mike A. is correct…..

    Summary:

    A presidential candidate is free to choose anyone he/she wants as a vice-presidential running mate. Though he candidate chooses someone from their own party, since their chances of being elected with a running mate from a different party would be minimal.

    Historically the VP was the candidate who lost the election. Now the VP is selected as a running mate. A presidential candidate decides who he/she thinks would provide a good “draw” to the voters.

    Because of the differences in JQA and TJ we got the 12th Amend…which states as follows:

    “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.
    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

  14. There’s a saying in the entertainment industry that resolves all decisions regarding who to point a camera at when more than one entertainer is at the same place: follow the money. The bigger the star the more camera time.

    The MSM (including the debate moderators and planners) have marginalized the low-odds politicians running for president for years, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. That this works to keep a candidate marginalized is just icing on the cake for the folks that like and want it that way.

  15. I supported Kucinich early in 2004. In my opinion, Kucinich’s voice and.debating style aided in his marginalization. Then I supported Dean and he lost it and screamed. Dean did very well as DNC chair with his fifty state strategy. Paul’s voice makes him sound old and cranky.

  16. Ron Paul has essentially the same base as he had in 2008 – white males with tea party libertarian leanings.

  17. Kucinish has proved to be an ineffectual national figure. He rarely proposes anything and doesn’t know how to get things passed. he was a disaster as mayor of Cleveland with a cult-like cabinet of arrogant incompetents and got his start as a race-baiting city Councilman. Like Paul, the more you know about him, the less plausible/attractive he becomes.

  18. So murdering foreigners is cool as long as we can keep handing out money to people who dont have jobs. Really? Besides That, half of you complain about his personal views while disregarding the fact that he wouldnt be imposing them on anyone, considering he would let states decide most of the issues they should be deciding for themselves now. As for whoever complained we’d have less privacy if he was elected, tell me how much of your privacy would be lost when he ends the patriot act and dismantles the tsa and the dhs. Hate his personal views all you want, but you know that voting for him is the only way to ever see an end to america’s wars in you or your children’s lifetime.

  19. Ekeyra,

    IMO if states had free reign under someone like Paul we’d have legal slavery in some of them. It’s his state’s rights approach that some of us are unhappy with. Didn’t his son say the free market would have taken care of (made it unnecessary) slavery? Apples falling close to their trees methinks.

  20. lottakatz – Where is Paul advocating that state government (or any government) has the power to enslave citizens? I must have missed that.

    I know you’re a fan of unfettered government power if it sits at the federal level, as you wrote recently:

    I’d be OK with him invoking the 14th Amendment if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and sending Federal Marshall’s to round up everybody that votes against doing so as terrorists. He [the President] has the power, on paper at least to do so.

    Judging by the comments here it sounds like the bipartisan war machine will march on until the US is either obliterated by acts of retaliation or the empire collapses in financial ruin.

    Or both.

  21. puzzling, Paul said he won’t run as an independent so it is up to the republicans to get him nominated. Registered democrats have no say in what happens in the r’s primaries. Paul is at 8 or 9 percent so it looks like there is a lot of work to be done before you start blaming democrats for Paul’s failure to capture the republican nomination.

  22. As to Kucinich, I have always welcomed his articulate and principled voice in the greater debate. Like Paul he is also marginalized by the media and his own party. While I disagree with Kucinich and Paul on important points, both stand by their convictions and are uncorrupted by establishment influence. I respect that.

    On Bradley Manning and the Wikileaks controversy I wrote:

    Kucinich on this issue and many others is to be applauded for demonstrating principle and real political courage.

    It is telling that those on the left with a deep sense of ideals and conscience like Kucinich see more to praise in Paul than those here who instantly dismiss the man.

  23. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012—corn-polled-edition—ron-paul—the-top-tier?xrs=share_copy]

  24. Wow. Talk about praising with faint damnation. Imagine Constitutional Law Professor Turley’s pride at the level of critical thinking exhibited within these comments.

    Ekeyra has it absolutely right. Those commenting here on Professor Turley’s blog (a profound privilege, thank you, sir) seem unable to grasp that Paul’s ultimate stance is that people are entitled to their own beliefs. Have things become so twisted that we can’t even imagine that someone who has a differing opinion could respect our own? That’s what grown-ups do. Or at least they used to. What a sad state of affairs.

  25. Puzzeling: “It is telling that those on the left with a deep sense of ideals and conscience like Kucinich see more to praise in Paul than those here who instantly dismiss the man.”
    —-

    You seem to equate the two but to my mind they are polar opposites- I’ve written Dennis in many times but wouldn’t cross the street to put a dime in Pauls (or any libertarian) cup. Apples and oranges. Paul and other Libertarians think states and the free market cures all ill, Kucinich is grounded in reality.

  26. Puzzlling: “I know you’re a fan of unfettered government power if it sits at the federal level, as you wrote recently:

    “I’d be OK with him invoking the 14th Amendment if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and sending Federal Marshall’s to round up everybody that votes against doing so as terrorists. He [the President] has the power, on paper at least to do so. ”
    ———

    You seem to assume that both parties were acting in good faith. That’s not correct. After McConnel said that job one for Republicans was to bring down the President I measured everything done against that dictum. Bringing the country to the brink of default to that end (purely political) is traitorous behaviour IMO. We absolutely disagree on this matter.

  27. Whether you like or dislike either of them, what they have in common is they are true to their words. They are not bought and paid for. And I do not believe either can be bought, character and principal mean more than money or prestige. I think thats the general feeling and makes the comparison easy, at least for me…

  28. AY – well said. I disagree with both Paul and Kucinich on several issues, but that’s far better to me than buying into a candidate that is elected on false promises.

    CNN just ran a piece by Jack Cafferty on the media coverage of Ron Paul:

  29. Most Paul supporters consider Kucinich to be a socialist. Kucinich was against the health care bill because it did not go far enough not because he was against government sponsored healthcare. If you look at the voting records of the two, they do not overlap very often.

  30. Lotta,

    America was hardly the only or even the first country to have slavery. Yet we are the only one that saw fit to slaughter 650,000 people to end it. Doesn’t that seem a little odd to you? Besides that there is plenty of history of states rights being used to fight slavery via nullification which everyone around these parts conventiently forgot when the issue was raised recently.

  31. an, yes I do. The problem is that this is an unproven technique that would never pass a Daubert scrutiny in a courtroom. And consider the fact this is going to be conducted by the same people who were responsible for the incident involving the late Joe Foss at the Phoenix airport.

    Joe Foss was a WW-II Marine fighter pilot who was awarded the Medal of Honor. He was going through the TSA checkpoint in Phoenix when the agent told him she was going to have to confiscate the Medal of Honor because it had sharp points and could be used as a weapon. The crusty old Marine told her that was not going to happen. She demanded to know where he got it. He said it was given to him by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Her response was, “Who is that?”

    Now don’t you feel safer already?

  32. Swarthmore mom states:

    … there is a lot of work to be done before you start blaming democrats for Paul’s failure to capture the republican nomination.

    Where am I blaming democrats for marginalizing Paul?

    Kucinich’s voice and debating style aided in his marginalization. Then I supported Dean and he lost it and screamed… Paul’s voice makes him sound old and cranky.

    So when you voted for Obama, his near-flawless delivery mattered more than the principles and ideas he stood for?

  33. anon nurse, The ‘chat down” isn’t for just the TSA. I opened a new bank account recently. It was a small checking account for online purchases. The bank clerk told me that she had to ask me a series of questions directed by Homeland Security before she could process my request for an account, no interview = no account.

    She wanted to know among other things:
    How long I had lived at my current address;
    Where is the money for this account coming from- wages, other accounts, retirement income, other;
    Do I do business with any foreign companies;
    Will I be depositing or withdrawing more than $1000.00 at a time;
    Will I be making payments to any foreign persons or corporations;
    Will any foreign persons or corporations be depositing money into the account, and there were a few others.
    She said all banks now have to make these inquiries prior to opening new accounts.

    Back on topic: I’m sure there will now be a steady stream of stories of people being denied boarding because they in some way fail their “chat”. I suggest that people use small words when being interviewed. I wonder what they are going to do about people that have speech difficulties or illness’ that cause uncontrolled muscle movements?

  34. It is clear to see that the Racist Liberal Nazis here, like Swarthmore are TERRIFIED by Ron Paul’s massive support across the board. Anyone who would use a quote from an anti-American Socialist rag like Salon as a legitimate anything, possesses an IQ of two above a carrot.

    Unlike any other candidate Dr. Paul has witnessed the true brutality of a living breathing child aborted and tossed in to a bucket to die screaming and crying. Only a cold blooded Hitlerian minded Nazis could carry out or support such a thing. Paul has been falsely accused of allot of things, but lying has never, ever been one of them.

    However, what can one expect from a pack of low life scum who get their jollies butchering innocent babies, like Swarthmore Mom. To bad your Mom wasn’t as evil and sick minded a piece of gutter trash as yourself.

    What a pathetic little idiot you are!!!

  35. “Paul is currently the only candidate (including Barack Obama) who has consistently opposed the wars…”

    Hmmm, is that why Obama CONTINUES Bush’s wars? And begins NEW ones [Libya]???

  36. @Swarthmore mom,

    Daily in the comments here, you take a stand against a collection individuals that you falsely group together and assign group characteristics too regarding their beliefs and even other malevolent properties. You do this based on things they were born with and cannot change. You damn them. You insinuate they are racists and sexists.

    Me, I think you’re a bully and a coward. And I think if you had anything actual to say you could say it without the gross generalizations that mark your own racism and sexism. I think you’re afraid to listen to other people and so you try to shut down lines of argument and thought with your vague insinuations of racism and sexism.

    It wasn’t so long ago that people could talk openly about the fuckin’ broads, how stupid they are, how they don’t deserve the vote. How they should get in the kitchen and were basically good for getting fucked and little else. And of course the stupid bitches deserved to be hit. And how fat they got after marriage.

    None of that was right. And neither is your bullshit.

    I know you think that white men are stoopid and its okay to throw rocks at them, but the truth is we are all too polite to tell you to fuck off.

    But your bigotry and offensive comments disgust me. You are wrong, and you malign people you don’t know, and whose sole sin is that they disagree with you. Kindly, I request that in the future you keep your gross generalizations and bigoted remarks to yourself.

  37. “Swarthmore mom
    1, August 16, 2011 at 10:04 pm
    http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-compares-social-security-and-medicare-to-slavery/ He’s the adult in the republican field? maybe”

    What that link shows is that rawstory employs hacks and enjoys could partisan hackery linkbaiting headlines.

    Nowhere in that link does Ron Paul “compare” social security to slavery. He doesn’t equate them, he doesn’t say one is better than the other, he doesn’t discuss their various attributes.

    He is told the Supreme Court judges Social Security to be constitutional and he uses slavery as an example of how the Supreme Court has made gross mistakes in the past.

    Noting the Supreme Court has made judgments that we now all agree were in error and noting slavery was one of them does not equate all Supreme Court mistakes with slavery. It mainly says that if the Supreme Court can get it so badly, horribly, terribly wrong with slavery, than why shouldn’t we think that they can’t get it wrong on other issues?

    What the hell is swarthmore teaching it’s moms?

  38. I don’t happen to believe that individuals trump or arise prior to the social group, but rather are a product of it.

    You can have individuals without a social group, but you can’t have a social group without individuals.

  39. darfurwarrior @ 12:10am & Anon @12:52

    WTF!!!

    “Unlike any other candidate Dr. Paul has witnessed the true brutality of a living breathing child aborted and tossed into a bucket to die screaming and crying.”

    Ron Paul stated in the video this event happened when he was a medical student in the 1960’s and abortion at that time was still ILLEGAL! Standing by and watching a baby die is MURDER and he had a duty to report what he witnessed, let alone at least attempt to save the baby. Again in his own words “…pretending nobody heard …he walked out of the room because I was a student, an observer.”

    “Only a cold blooded Hitlerian (sic) minded Nazi could carry out or support such a thing.”

    By your definition, you are describing Ron Paul are you not.

    “Paul has been falsely accused of a lot of things, but lying has never,ever been one of them.”

    Oh yea; watch the tape again and see for yourself, right after he tells that very self incriminating story at ~4:20 he lies about the government using the force of the IRS to use taxpayer’s money to pay for abortions and “that should be reversed!” Impossible to believe that Congressman Paul does not understand the Hyde Amendment!

    Stick a fork in him, Ron Paul is a pandering fool, and he is done. (Speaking metaphorically of course.) He will never be on the GOP ticket.

  40. darfurwarrior-

    You got the “Racist Liberal Nazis” thing in. You got the “anti-American Socialist rag” thing in. You got a bloody screaming baby tossed into a bucket. You got Hitler in. And “butchering innocent babies” was a nice touch.

    But where in the hell is there anything about the Communist plot to destroy our children by fluoridating the water supply? And you completely forgot to call anyone a Commie Rat Bastard. And no dire threats about what would happen to any sumbitch who tried to con-fin-skate your guns? And what about the War Against Christmas? And what about the Birth Certificate?

    Pathetic. Just pathetic.

  41. but the walls just crawl when the thread is on Paul don’t they?

    His “massive support across the country” is the same 8 to 9% of immature thinkers he has always had. As nice as libertarian philosophy sounds on paper it just does not work in the modern world where we actually live. It might be nice to think each of us is an island capable of doing whatever we wish and succeeding or failing on our own merits. But society is to intertwined and the game too easily rigged as we have seen every time we allow it to run too free.

    In the real world things run best when there is a balance between the power of money and the power of a government that is of, by and for, the people. We lost that balance a while back and now the government is more of, by and for the money.

    The way the media, particularly Fox Propaganda Network treats Paul is a glaring example of how they get to define the terms of debate. Paul will fail again this time even without their ‘help’ the real crime is that they do this on every topic and too many Americans are not aware or do not care enough to demand better.

  42. Again, show me any candidate who is ready to immediately put an end to our expensive, deadly, and illegal wars. In either party. I wont hold my breath.

  43. darfurwarrior and anon= Shrill, mudslinging rage and false accusations woven into a tapestry of nonsense. Two supporters of Ron Paul. Two loose cannons.

    Swarthmore mom= Interesting, intelligent comments. Facts and links to back them up. No racism. No sexism. And most definitely not “a bully and a coward”.

    darfurwarrior and anon- It’s not Swarthmore mom’s fault that Ron Paul can’t poll more than 9%. Console yourselves with his second place finish in the Ames Looney Tunes Caucus and get on with your lives. You should be happy that “The Rent’s Too Damn High” guy wasn’t running at Ames.

  44. Thanks, HenMan. I think all of Ron Paul’s positions need to be looked at. Maybe if the media gave him more attention as he says he wants, people could see what he really stands for.

  45. @Henman,

    “Shrill, mudslinging rage and false accusations woven into a tapestry of nonsense. ”

    Really? Can you show me my mudslinging rage and false accusations please?

    Can you tell me how my statements about another person’s uncorrected sexist comments and bigoted remarks amounts to my being full of rage?

    Can you compare my statements where I take you and SM seriously with your “Shrill, mudslinging rage, false accusations, and tapestry of nonsense”?

    Thank you for calling me shrill, though I don’t deserve it. Can you tell me who our most shrill pundit is? And what is track record on the issues is? (Hint: Nobel Prize in Econ.) Can you even understand how silly you become when you therefore dismiss others as shrill?

  46. JT, if you can pal around with a racist like Ron Paul then Obama and MSNBC can pal around with a racist baiter like Al Sharpton.

  47. Catch22oy: “In the Stewart clip, Paul was at a loss to name a country that is run by his version of libertarianism. I got one : Somalia. Small government, no regulations on business, no taxes (except those collected by warlords), and no Education department. I like Paul’s consistent anti-war message but some of his other views are crazy.”

    Very well said!

  48. Darfurwarrior, of all the posters on this board, you most personify the conservative trend of spewing hatred and impugning the motives of anybody who disagrees with your politics.

    I’m not a liberal and voted Republican most of my life, but when I told my cousin, the gun collector, that I can no longer vote Republican because they want to give corporations free rein with no consumer protections, he called me “a liberal, bleeding-heart, pig (fornicating), Communist pussy.” You’ve got him beat. You kiss your mother with that mouth?

    Recent elections show a country roughly divided in half – 51% to 49% “mandates.”

    Apparently you believe half of the country to be right and the other half to be anti-American Racist Liberal Nazis with an IQ two points above a carrot. In a republic, you should be selling us on your ideas, not calling us names or painting us all with the same brush. Shame on you for vilifying the half of the country who don’t share your political views. They don’t all want cradle to grave (erection to resurrection) free handouts. Some just want pure food, clean air, ethical financial transactions, and the right of everybody to participate.

  49. Dr. Paul is the greatest statesman of our time. In other words he is not a politician. He is an honest and just man. The most honest and just in D.C.

    If you care about America you will support his campaign for president even if you cannot vote for him in the primary.

    If you support Obama you support totalitarianism and genocide. And if you support any other Republican you support them as well. You might not realize it, but that is what you are doing.

  50. Ron Paul is not a racist. And the comments in Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) were not even racist. They were frank talk about racial aspects and culture.

    Racists on the left do not like frank talk about race. If you tell them that different races have different IQs they will screech like banshees because it doesn’t fit in with their political ideology. If you talk about race and crime (relevant topics) they start screaming racism. But if talk of race brings handouts to blacks or Hispanics, they want to talk about that until the cows come home. You can have Black Entertainment Television, but just try to have White Entertainment Television. The leftist racists will not permit it. So they label frank talk racism merely because they do not approve of in order to shut down the discussion.

    Only an imbecile, dirt-bag, or a liar thinks Paul is a racist.

  51. Tootie, if the only thing I knew about you was the last half dozen or so sentences in your post just above at 3:48 AM, I can easily conclude that you, yourself, are a racist. So what we have here is a racist defending a guy who has repeatedly made racist statements.

    Now I have no idea if Dr. Paul is a racist or not. His statements may just be pandering to his base and do not actually represent his true views. So what we have here is either a racist or a demagogue. Or maybe both.

  52. Tootie—–excellent posts and excellent points. Blacks can have Black Entertainment TV, their own history month, the United Negro college fund and the Million Man March. If you inserted the word “white” everyplace the word “black” is at, or if you had a WHITE million man march, they would be considered the largest KKK gatherings ever. Before you morons throw around the word “racist”—tell me first, where am I wrong?

    These douchebags on this thread bashing Ron Paul are following the old adage by Ghandi:

    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win”

    Right now, these fools are on the “ridiculing” Ron Paul phase.

  53. Hmmm, you say Ron paul is racist. Hmmm. Is that why he considered Martin Luther King, Jr one of his idols? Is that why he attended the Morgan State University [all black college] GOP debate in Baltimore on 9/27/07 and Giuliani, Fred Thompson, McCain and Romney did NOT attend it?

    In fact, heres the video of that debate.

    http://www.taudiobook.com/closed_caption/republican_debate_maryland/

    Watch the video at 11:28 and you will hear them introduce Ron Paul. Listen to the crowd [of nearly ALL black people]. He gets the loudest applause of anyone introduced—even Alan Keyes [who’s black]. Now why would the “racist” get a roaring applause? And why would a “racist” attend the black college debate?

    Hmmmm?????

  54. Janeane Garofalo on why a woman or person of color could be a Republican. It has to be Stockholm Syndrome, Money, Self-Loathing, Nuts, etc.,

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/18/garofalo-herman-cain-a-paid-prop-to-deflect-charges-of-gop-racism/

    ““But Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go, ‘Oh, they can’t be racist. It’s a black guy. It’s a black guy asking for Obama to be impeached’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is anti-Muslim,’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is a tea party guy,’” she continued. “I feel like, well wouldn’t that suit the purposes of whomever astroturfs these things, whether it be the Koch Brothers or ALEC or Grover Norquist or anything. It could even be Karl Rove. ‘Let’s get Herman Cain involved so it deflects the obvious racism of our Republican Party.’”

    Why would Cain, a “person of color,” participate in this electoral process? As she has theorized about Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Garofalo believes Cain suffers from Stockholm syndrome:

    “There may be a touch of Stockholm syndrome, because anytime I see a person of color or a female in the Republican Party or the conservative movement or the tea party, I wonder how they could be trying to curry favor with the oppressors? Is it Stockholm syndrome or does somebody pay them?””

  55. OPPS! Correction time. The sentence should read “The good news is that this jive & the revival of ‘Ron Paul racist’ horse poo shows us who actually want to rescue the US from the socialist ‘progressive’ movement, of which Captain Zero is poster child for, are becoming very desperate.”

    SamFox

Comments are closed.