Washington Post ombud Patrick Pexton dedicated his column this weekend (8/29/11) to addressing complaints about the skimpy coverage of Republican presidential contender Ron Paul. It’s hard to argue with the numbers he’s gathered:
Still, the Post‘s coverage of Paul looks thin compared with its stories on Bachmann. In the past six months, the Post has published online or in print 34 staff-written stories plus 12 wire service stories on Bachmann, who has served not even five years in the House, and that doesn’t count the blog posts about her on the Fix or Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker pieces. The Post published 19 staff-written stories on former House speaker Newt Gingrich in that time, plus one wire story and many blog posts. On Paul, a congressman for more than 20 years, who was No. 2 in fundraising after Romney in the last report, the Post has published just three full stories, a couple more that had large sections on him along with other candidates, two wire stories and the Fix blog posts.
Bachmann has a 46-5 advantage over Paul–that’s pretty stunning (and it doesn’t even count Bachmann’s appearances in the Fact Checker column, which is a place you’re likely to read about her). A Post editor assures that more coverage of Paul is forthcoming, and that Gingrich got more coverage because his “campaign imploded when most of his senior staff walked out in June.” You don’t normally hear journalists talking about the need to thoroughly cover campaigns that are in complete disarray.
I hope Paul gets the nomination.
I don’t want Bachmann to get the nomination so Obama can win the General election.
I’d be irresponsible enough putting her a general election away form the presidency. I want the best the GOP has got against the best the Democratic Party has got. That’s how democracy should work.
To CIA Jon – what do you like about Ron Paul’s platform?
Jon Stewart did a funny bit about the TV news ignoring Ron Paul…did you see it? Last week.
One of the take-aways The Daily Show alluded to was that it may be because of Pauls’ antiwar positions.
Alternet has this article on Ron Paul’s politics beyond war and pot: http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution_–_%27cuddly%27_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics/
Paul still seems the lesser of the Republican crazies ( Perry, Bachmann) but that is being damned with faint praise.
Miranda:
I think that they could care less about his antiwar position. In my opinion, what they will never allow is his desire to kill the bank.
The Stewart “observation” was a hoot………:}
It seems like candidates who want to end many excessive government programs, which often benefit the rich and well-connected, often get opposed by the corrupted mainstream media. Ron Paul stands for restoring our civil liberties and ending the excessive wars. If people want to find out more about Ron Paul’s positions, they can please visit http://www.ronpaul2012.com.
I’d feel sorry for Ron Paul if he wasn’t such an Anarchist Loon-bag. Yes, he’s got some great things to say, but we have to remember that it is his STATED GOAL to DESTROY THE GOVERNMENT, and institute a law of Might Makes Right.
Freedoms are a good thing, but too many freedoms are dangerous, as is too much of any good thing.
Ron Paul has certain fixed principles that are not for sale. The influence peddlers that dominate the beltway and the media that loves them and feasts off their “tidbits” of planted information will not stand for that and will try all kinds of things to destroy him. Neglect is the first and easiest tactic. He would really shake things up, but the things a president can do are mostly restricted to foreign policy and war, where he would make quite a difference.
Having grown up in Michigan hearing militia members and New World Order paranoiacs quoting Ron Paul endlessly I’ve learned to take Paul seriously, but only for the extreme danger his thinly veiled militia ideology poses to democracy and human rights.
Rep. Paul doesn’t think the government should help disaster victims. I don’t want to live in a country where it’s every man for himself. We’re all in this together. They claim he is not covered in the media because they know he would not win a majority in the general election. However, neither would Bachman or Palin, and they get more media coverage than they deserve.
To Robobenito:
Thanks for your comments re: Ron Paul.
Have you heard anything about him accepting campaign $$$ from the K.K.K.???
I await your reply…
Martha H — Rom Paul thinks the federal government shouldn’t be involved in coordinating state disaster response, not that no government should help, and he thinks FEMA’s flood insurance program is a giveaway to rich people with houses on the beach.
Ron Paul wants to stop the wars which are killing thousands of people all over the world. He wants to stop the costly drug war which he expressly points out is unfairly targeting black people, putting millions of Americans in increasingly for-profit jails and destroying mainly minority communities. He is in favor of individual rights and opposed to the national security state and the destruction of civil liberties. He also is opposed to the death penalty because of its racist applications and the evidence that innocent people are being condemned to death.
Those are some of the main reasons to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary in your state. I’d say the main one is our moral obligation to make an effort to stop our country from killing more people and destroying more countries. Voting for Ron Paul is a strategic decision. It’s time to form an alliance with others on priority issues of mutual concern. You don’t have to agree entirely with Ron Paul. And stop swallowing the corporate media’s message that he’s nothing but a nut. (You might try looking at it from the point of view of what a corrupt and dangerous monster the federal government has actually become, rather than from some dreamy idea of what the federal government is supposed to be.) We need to try to change the national dialogue to subjects that really matter to the American people, put some fear in the political machinery, and show the two-headed political beast that we do have somewhere to go, that we can form coalitions and act on our beliefs.
Just because some militia members oppose the government entering your home without a warrant doesn’t mean that we can’t also be opposed to the government entering our homes without a warrant.
Some further reading on Ron Paul:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/28/is-ron-paul-more-progressive-than-obama/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/08/24/in-praise-of-ron-paul/
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/black-democrats-go-israel-ron-paul-puts-democrats-shame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU â┚¬“ Ron Paul on ending the War on Drugs
Ron Paul and Ralph Nader — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc
Ralph Nader on the new political dynamic of an alliance between Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul on cutting the military budget and corporate welfare â┚¬“
Maybe if you’ve got tits, a nice ass, and a winsome smile (all of which Bachman has and Paul doesn’t), you get more coverage in the media.
Ron Paul, the most credible candidate in past presidential campaigns and is so far in this one.
@ Cesar Silva
I’ve never heard about Paul getting KKK money, but his late 80’s, early 90’s newsletters printed racist materials….CNN: “None of the newsletters says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul’s name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas. In 2008 Paul told CNN’s “The Situation Room” that he didn’t write any of the offensive articles and has “no idea” who did.”
However, back in the 90’s the Houston Chronicle printed an article that reported that Paul did write the articles in question….”Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “”current events and statistical reports of the time.” ”
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749
McBob, anarchism is a left-wing ideology opposed to both the state and capitalism. You traduce it by identifying it with “might is right” or Ron Paul. Paul is a paleoconservative minachist with some history of strange survivalist/supremacist associations.
I don’t understand why everyone here is so confused as to what Ron Paul’s ideology is. Ron Paul is a adherent to the “objectivist” philosophy of Ayn Rand, which expresses itself through the so-called “libertarian” Party of the USA (real libertarianism being an anarcho-socialist movement every else in the world).
I have never understood US-style libertarianism/objectivism. Those who believe in it must be either profoundly naive or profoundly cynical. Most “libertarians” have met are either quite wealthy and at least a bit psychopathic, or socially awkward aspergers-syndrome types in the “tech” industry.
Of course, any sane person can normally see that the only end-result of Ron Paul’s “libertarianism” is a savage, neo-feudal form of capitalism. And, I remain stupefied how any one who self-describes as a leftist could actually think the election of Ron Paul would be a good thing at all, aside from those who ascribe to the “worse-the better” tactic of working-class struggle.
A question for FAIR: How does The New York Time’s ‘FAIR’ on the coverage of Ron Paul?
â┚¬Ã…“I don’t understand why everyone here is so confused as to what Ron Paul’s ideology is.â┚¬Ã‚ Me too. If anyone is confused, why don’t you take a peek at Ron Paul’s New Book: â┚¬Ã…“Liberty Defined: The 50 Urgent Issues That Affect Our Freedom.â┚¬Ã‚ In the book, Ron speaks his mind directly and lays out his philosophy on practically every issue that this country is facing. While I don’t entirely agree with everything he says, especially with regard to foreign policy, at least Ron is a breath of fresh air after hearing other politicians speak out of the corners of their mouth and afraid to really state their position for fear of alienating anyone.
Yes, Ron Paul is the best Republican candidate in a lot of ways, and better than the Dems on foreign policy and other issues as well. Many of his policies I agree with, it is the context of why he has certain policy beliefs that I have issue with.(Full disclosure: if one were to label me I suppose it would be an anarchist.) Being anti government is all fine and dandy (though he isn’t on abortion, the borders, etc. huh?), but he wants to replace government with the corporate rule. I mean corporations basically rule government anyways, so tea party people are really just wanting to cut out the middle man. How can one be anti-government but not anti-corporation? I just don’t get it. This is fascism pure and simple. Government evil. Corporations good. (—- That is their viewpoint in a nutshell. At least there are some checks and balances in government and it serves as a weak buffer against corporate rule. When corporations are this strong you need government to protect the people. If the corporations take fully over, I mean there is only one recourse and it will be to war against them. There will be no other recourse.
2 Racists in Denial, 1 is devious, the other is bat-shit crazy.. Decisions decisions. /sarcasim
What I like about Ron Paul are his views about ending the wars, closing down American military bases, providing a mechanism for auditing (at the very least) the Federal Reserve, closing down the Department of Homeland Security, which has been a huge expansion of the federal government, and in general his dedication to a small central government, one in keeping with the Constitution.
His view that many issues are more properly dealt with at the State level are correct, Constitutionally. Gay and/or civil marriage for same-sex couples is a matter for the States to decide, and it is not a matter for the Federal government, any more than is the institution of marriage between different gender couples.
And to PAUL DONUHUE above, Ron Paul writes in his book “The Revolution, a Manifesto” that while he thinks Ayn Rand’s book are worth reading, he disagrees strongly with many of her views.
Thank goodness this issue has been covered in some way by FAIR. During the last election cycle, you could have added FAIR to the list of media that did not cover Paul (or at least did not cover the types of discrepencies listed in this blog, which were painfully obvious and even pointed out by some mainstream sources). I had written a letter pointing out that Extra! had been continuously publishing comparatively innocuous reports on Rudy Guliani, but when the most aggregious examples of media shunning of Ron Paul were going on I couldn’t find a word pointing this out in the one place I expected it. I was convinced that FAIR itself had fallen prey to bias, and I do hope this issue will be pursued as long as the facts merit coverage.
It’s amazing that throughout the Paul v. Bachman for Autocrat controversy — no one has mentioned that arch-conservative, Tea Party favorite, and AIPAC ass kisser PAMELA GELLER.
Not only is Ms. Geller the dialectical heiress to Ayn Rand, but has counted Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman among her close personal friends. [As opposed to her close, impersonal friends.] And she’s on a first-name basis with the most conservative Supreme Court justices (Antonin Scalia, Clarence “Hi-Tech Lynching” Thomas, etc. And, if she’s elected w/ any kind of “coat tails” she could stack the House and Senate with neo-neo-neo-conservatives that are to the right of Attila the Hun.
And you know she’ll be able to bring in all that lobbyist dough from the mega-banks and those multinational and soon-to-be interplanetary corporations that belong to the National Assn. of MFGers., and the Bilderberg Chamber of Commerce.
I’d sure like to see more tub-thumbing on behalf of her as a possible 2012 candidate. Especially from those eager beaver TPers who just ate a rat sandwich on top of a couple of spoonfuls of Ipecac.
Im pretty sure Ron Paul is unelectable for a whole host of reasons.If the press was honest ,they would see that ,and no he would not be high on their list.He does well in early polling but it is destined to fade.I think the press knows that.They also know in the end Bachman is unelectable and will fade as well.Newt is on that path too.Sorry but I see their ignoring these candidates as simply reading the tea leaves.I think they write about Bachmann because it is good dish.Nothing more.Paul is the cranky old uncle.Not as good fodder
Pelle I have been a tea party member since day one.Actually since I worked for Clinton. Before the name for common sense,small government , reawakening of the constitutional movement even existed.Im glad you told me though that mrs Geller is a favorite of ours.Isn’t she that ex writer for the Daily news(financial analyst)who has a blog that talks about political islam and sharia law?That is about all i know of her.Never have heard her mentioned for the life of me in any tea party circles unless i was sleeping through it.But thanks for telling me she is big wig favorite of ours.Now if i ever hear her speak a word i will know who she is.
Paul wants us to return to a government of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. That must be where is ancient brain lives.
As for ‘Obamanation’, his pretty speeches were all lies. We now have one corporate party, the Democrats, or new age Republicans and what was the Republican party has discintigrated into a nasty group of racist crazies. Most want to destroy our republic and and repace it with what will become anarchy. We need to create a new party, call it The Main Street Party or any other name that refects what regular Americans need and want addressed, jobs, health care for all, the end of perpetual war and an enviromentment that supports life. The last is the most important because, if you can’t drink the water, breath the air or live on the land, NOTHING else matters. Vote for OTHER choices, they are on most ballots and if they aren’t on yours demand it! The ONLY thing that these 2 parties have in common now is the determination to keep ALL others off ballots. I say start at the state level and work your way up.
Thanks to Paul D. above for the straight talk about Dr. Paul. Libertarianism is the last refuge of a scoundrel–and a direct attack on democracy. There’s a reason why the Baggers and their billionaire string-pullers are mostly half-assed Libertarians, and it’s got nothing to with opposing war. Indeed not.
Although the reports of his racist writings re: African Americans [his 1992 newsletter] and acceptance of a $500 donation from Don Black of the neo-Nazi leaning “Stormfront” [whose website has a Ron Paul promotional page] may have occured in the past, his white supremacist connections are a significant cause for concern…
Tim I have to tell you that most tea party members are not in Dr Pauls voting pocket.Nothing against him….it just is incorrect.Ron Paul followers are his own, though from what I gather THEY do agree with the basic tea party ideals.Really what American who understands and believes in the constitution doesn’t?
Cesar of course any tie to white separatist views are cause for concern.though the ties seem tenuous.Much less than Barracks tie to black separatist views(Rev wright)and his radical associations.But who cared about that?