There is an interesting controversy out of the Republican debates where Rep. Ron Paul was given just 90 seconds to speak during a 90 minute debate. I have never hidden my admiration for Paul for his courageous positions on issues like torture and his opposition to the various wars. What is particularly troubling is that Paul used his limited time (as did John Huntsman) to speak out against torture. We have previously discussed whether the mainstream media is actively marginalizing the candidate. On this occasion, however, it appears to have been an intentional decision by CBS in the South Carolina debates.
A study cited below by the University of Minnesota last month “confirmed that Ron Paul had been given the least speaking time out of all the Republican candidates during the debates, even less than the likes of John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who have routinely been beaten by Paul in national polls.”
Supporters are also citing an email inadvertently sent to Michelle Bachmann’s campaign in which a CBS staffer referenced how Bachmann’s campaign had made representatives available for an after-debate webshow. In the email, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson responded by saying, “Okay let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”
Likewise, supporters are still smarting over an exchanged between Politico’s Roger Simon and CNN host Howard Kurtz after the Iowa straw poll where Paul basically tied for first with Bachmann. Simon dismissed Paul as relevant and said “we’re gonna ignore him.” Kurtz responded by saying “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race.”
Of course, at least Republican have debates and choices. These debates have proven highly useful for voters in sorting out candidates. Democrats will get no debate and no choice. Despite great opposition to Obama from civil libertarians and other groups, the Democratic National Committee and process is a lock for Obama and voters will be given no other options but to vote for him or choose a Republican or third-party candidate.
Source: InfoWars
pete,
That’s not his tail . . .
the only way the media is going to give ron paul air time is if herman cain starts swinging him around by his tail.
I see Ron Paul as a modern day Ralph Nader. Some good points, but a lot of crazy policy views.
“What strikes me is the blatant media admissions of how they limit viable candidates frm being able to deliver their message. ”
Mike,
To counter act that, I HIGHLY recommend http://www.votesmart.org/ to everyone.
@Blouise: Getting angry about it is about as useful as sitting in the middle of Lake Erie trying to get a signal on your cell phone …
Ha! Not something I have tried, but I admit I might hold it up pretty high in the vain hope that I wouldn’t have to start paddling.
Republican Gary Johnson is not the average presidential candidate:
The former New Mexico governor, known nationally as ‘the marijuana guy,’ supports drug decriminalization, sympathizes with Occupy protesters and barnstorms on a bicycle.
By Kate Linthicum
Los Angeles Times
11/13/11
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gary-johnson-20111113,0,5763846.story
Excerpt:
Reporting from Los Angeles— As campaign stops for Republican presidential candidates go, the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in downtown Los Angeles seemed like a strange choice.
There was reggae music booming from big speakers, lapel pins shaped like marijuana leaves and a speech by California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco who is famous for granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
And yet there Gary Johnson stood this month, drawing cheers from a crowd of drug decriminalization activists.
Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico, has promised that if he wins the Republican nomination and is elected president, he’ll issue a pardon for anyone serving prison time for a nonviolent marijuana crime. He has also pledged to overhaul the tax system and cut federal spending by 43%.
What Johnson’s shoestring presidential campaign lacks in resources and media attention — which is a lot — it has made up for in eccentricities. Consider last month, when the candidate showed up to talk economics with protesters at Occupy Wall Street. Or his recent 458-mile barnstorming tour of New Hampshire — on a bicycle.
In October, Johnson rented a house in Manchester and decided to focus his campaign efforts entirely on New Hampshire, where he hopes his candid style and libertarian leanings will appeal to Republican primary voters famous for their independent streak.
“My entire career, everything has always been different,” said Johnson, a former building contractor and self-made millionaire who won the governorship in 1994 with no previous political experience. “And isn’t that what people want these days? Something different?”
But seven months into his campaign, Johnson has yet to climb higher than 3% in polls of voters’ preference for Republican primary candidates. He has been left out of most of them, and he has been excluded from all but two of the televised Republican debates. That has made an imposing challenge out of fundraising and expanding his name recognition beyond his small but ardent core of supporters.
“I’m basically a non-entity,” he said.
http://i51.tinypic.com/4jkcvd.jpg No Better Hands American”s can be in
@Bathsheba: How does Paul square his anti-abortion position with core libertarian beliefs?
Although I am pro-choice, I believe Paul defends his stance on the same grounds that libertarians believe murder should be illegal: He believes, and irrationally in my view, that a a fertilzed egg has a right to life.
I think he is mistaken. I do not think that is an inherently hypocritical view. I do think that even with this view, it requires a balancing of rights between the mother and the egg or fetus, and I think that should come down on the side of the mother, so I think he is mistaken there as well, but Paul’s view is not necessarily hypocritical.
“Well, I don’t – and millions of us are supporting Ron Paul. Underestimate him and us at your own risk – and get ready to rumble!! “(Belle)
Oh great … be afraid ’cause we’re going to rumble … honestly? Paul’s in trouble.
“Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. I think this sort of thing happens to candidates from both parties. I’d say that members of both parties have had their choices limited with the help of the media.” (Elaine)
I completely agree with that assertion.
In my opinion, Paul and Kucinich are used as beards by their respective parties. “See we have independent, free-thinkers!” It’s a fund raising trick along the same lines as Bachmann/Perry who attract the teabagger set. The upper echelons of either party would never seriously consider handing any of them the sceptre. The media knows that and reacts accordingly.
Getting angry about it is about as useful as sitting in the middle of Lake Erie trying to get a signal on your cell phone …
I applaud Paul on his anti-torture stance, but think he’s a real outlier on most other issues.
As for his anti-abortion stance, I don’t understand why a libertarian would be against abortion. I thought libertarians were against governmental interference. I would think a ban on abortions would constitute an unwarranted governmental interference in a woman’s health care decisions. I personally stand by the original Roe v. Wade criteria-right to abortion unlimited during first trimester.
How does Paul square his anti-abortion position with core libertarian beliefs?
I hate to say it but I couldn’t vote for Obama in 2008, so I didn’t vote. I thought he was way too inexperienced. He didn’t have enough of a record for me. He never even finished one term as US senator. I thought, give him another 15 years in the senate. It’s really pretty shocking when you think of it: someone who vaults from Illinous legislator to president in a few years? I had nothing against him personally at the time. I never read his books about his father.
I just finished a bio of his mother and read his father’s bio. Having read both books I can say someone should analyze why he glorified the man who was little more than a sperm donor, while giving his mother such short shrift. His mother was very hurt and rightly so. The end of her life was pretty horrible.. Working in NYC for pennies… Going on business trips when she should have been following her MD’s advice to undergo medical tests. (BTW the insurance problem she had at the end of her life concerned disability insurance, not medical insurance. What’s more the ins. Co. was justfied in denying her coverage-we are talking about chump change, not medical expenses. Her health insurer never denied coverage.) You get the feeling that something happened to him in college..it’s like he wanted to wipe out the half of him that was “white.”
Belle,
What gave you the idea that all of us folks are “so afraid” of Ron Paul?
Wow, why are all you folks so afraid of Ron Paul? Because he believes in the Constitution? Because he wants to end illegal wars, restore a sound monetary system, end the illegal and immoral income tax, allow states to do what they will under the 9th and 10th amendments, end the federal leviathan that has oppressed us all?
Do you really believe that America has been best served by the bunch of mediocrities that have been in the White House? Are we better off? No! We are no better than a third world banana republic with a petty dictator. Is this what you want?
Well, I don’t – and millions of us are supporting Ron Paul. Underestimate him and us at your own risk – and get ready to rumble!! Ron Paul 2012.
Bdaman,
As I said, please mark quoted material in some way — it shouldn’t be the case that the reader has to figure it out. I read Greenwald regularly and noticed that you didn’t attribute the quote to him, though you provided the link, which isn’t enough.
Please don’t put me between you and another commenter (Tony C., in this case.) Please use quotation marks and/or mark the excerpt as such…
@ Tony C via anon nurse 1, November 14, 2011 at 8:55 am
Bdaman,
You might want to note that you’ve quoted Greenwald…
Great post, Tony and spot on about the problem with Paul’s views.
@Catullus: I’m genuinely curious..exactly how would smaller government and lower taxes result in less freedom?
To begin, I am not endorsing our particular American government in any way. With that said:
Do you believe that the presence of cops and the courts and prisons make crime less prevalent?
I believe they do, and in general, I believe the primary purpose of any government is to protect its citizens from predation, both predation from abroad (so we have armies) and predation from within (so we have laws against fraud, rape, theft, endangerment, and laws to enforce contracts, we have laws to prevent corporations from polluting, and employers from putting their employees in danger, and so on.)
These laws need to be enforced, and the enforcement is necessarily a job of government if we want any chance of ensuring they are enforced with neutrality.
I do not think that government should be big, or should be small, I think it should have the resources it needs to stop the predators. I think Ron Paul’s version of “small government” allows far more predation than I think is either fair or sensible. Primarily by corporations, exploiting employees and producing harm to the citizenry to increase profits, in ways for which (under Ron Paul’s vision) they could no longer be held accountable. That is why I think he is mistaken.
I do not regard “freedom” as the condition to do whatever we want regardless of the consequences to others. I think people are free when they can make their own choices and set their own values and have the opportunity to achieve their potential, but without doing harm to others.
I think it is the primary job of the government to prevent people, companies, countries, or any other group or entity from doing harm to others in the pursuit of profit, power, gratification or ideology. At least to the best of their ability and to the extent the populace demands such protection; since such “protection” can itself grow to the point of oppression.
In that vein, in defense of our American government size, I will note that the vast majority of entitlements and laws on the books are there because citizens demanded them and applauded them. So do I, and although I think they could be enforced with about 1/2 the resources, I would guess 85% of the law made before 1998 or so is aimed at reducing the predation on citizens, and I think that increases our freedom.
@Catullus re “how would smaller government and [the corresponding] lower[ing of] taxes result in less freedom”
Would removing the law against dumping waste in the streets increase or decrease freedom, do you think?
@Tony C re the constitution. Agree.
The only thing the president is made to swear to do in the oath of office is to preserve protect and defend the Constitution.
Obama took the oath of office twice. Was that a foreshadow?
Presidents seem to betray their number one promise – like a compassionate conservative who had compassion only for “his base”.
@Bdaman and the war on drugs. Agree.
There is a drug problem in the jails, like “the tombs”.
If the US cannot prevent a drug problem in an environment where they have a free hand, and all the people are locked behind bars, what are the odds that the “drug problem” will be solved anywhere else?