One of the strangest comments post- Iowa straw poll came from reporter Kelly O’Donnell on NBC Nightly News (8/14/11):
Both Pawlenty’s exit and Perry’s launch consumed political oxygen that typically would have gone to the straw poll’s actual winner, Congresswoman Bachmann, who appeared on all five Sunday morning talk shows, including Meet the Press.
I’m having trouble imagining how someone could put those two thoughts together. Bachmann was merely on five national TV shows Sunday morning. That’s being overshadowed?
If that’s oxygen deprivation, one has to wonder what you’d call the media treatment of Ron Paul, who finished one percentage point behind Bachmann, despite being treated as a non-candidate by the national media. Politico‘s Roger Simon (8/15/11), argued that you can’t say the straw poll means almost nothing and that Bachmann’s victory makes her a top-tier candidate:
Straw polls are just organized bribery, with the campaigns buying the tickets and distributing them to supporters. (And, in fact, this is what I wrote before Ames.)
What they really show, many argue, is not where the philosophical heart of the party is, but the organizational abilities of the candidates.
Fine, I’ll buy that. But why didn’t Paul get the same credit for his organizational abilities as Bachmann did for hers?
He points out that last time around finishing second was treated as a victory:
Four years ago, Mike Huckabee came in a bad second to Romney, losing by 13.4 percentage points. Huckabee managed to spin that into a victory at Ames and became a media darling.
But Paul almost wins the thing and he remains poison.
Simon’s conclusion, though, is disappointing. GOP operatives and officials were responsible for determining the winners/losers storyline:
So don’t blame the media. Here are Republicans, presumably Republican operatives, who said if one candidate wins, the contest is significant, but if another wins the contest is not credible.
That doesn’t add up. Reporters don’t have to take their marching orders from party operatives.
But if you want the definitive take-down of the corporate media’s Paul-blocking top-tierism watch this segment from the Daily Show:
The John Stewart clip is shocking. We have a large portion of the electorate following the long-time American tradition of being ignorant and proud of it, and the news media doing everything they can to exploit that ignorance.
One scarcely even hears of Ron Paul because the news media say next to nothing about him and even ridicule him. And why is that? He favors ending three unjustified, misrepresented, and completely insane wars, so recognizing his existence just might offend the defense contractors.
The American news media now have the power to eliminate otherwise viable candidates for public office, and they are using it. The only recourse remaining to the electorate is to boycott the major retail products advertised by such despicable media commentators as those shown on the Stewart clip.
How much more evidence does this country need? The “game” is quite obviously rigged.
Obviously the powers that be are afraid of an honest politician who has been consistent in his views throughout his long career and who would present an obstacle to the criminal behavior that is rampant in government and corporations these days. So mush for any hope of change.
The media have been depriving Bachmann and Paul and everyone else of oxygen to fill the room with Perry since before he declared. I’ve been appalled at the relentless spotlight and buzz trained on Perry, and I’m not the only one — numerous complaints from others, too, regarding the whoppingly preferential attention being paid to Perry by all the media. If and when other candidates are cited, very often it’s regarding their reactions to Perry!
The whole aura the media have surrounded Perry with shimmers with the anticipation that “This is the one we’ve been waiting for!” I’ve never seen such a gross case of the media pre-anointing a candidate — and the primaries are still 6 months away!
Listen, media all of you, it’s for the voters to nominate the candidate of their choice, not for you! Your job is to report impartially on all legitimate candidates so that the voter can make the best informed choice.
ron paul should get not only more media coverage but actual honest reporting, because honest reporting would reveal that he is NOT anti-war because he voted IN FAVOR OF starting the u.s. war against Afghanistan (Congressional Record, Sept. 14, 2001, pgs. H5638 to H5683 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H5638&dbname=2001_record ), & that he is racist, misogynist, anti-labor, & anti-community:
“Nuclear energy can also provide the American people with a reliable and environmentally sound alternative. Therefore, we should repeal federal regulations that hinder the development of nuclear energy. However, we should also repeal all federal subsidies and privileges granted the nuclear industry. Nuclear power should prove its worth in the free-market.”http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/energy.html
on education: http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/education.html
on abortion “in 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/life.html
his list of endorsers: http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/endorsements.htmlhe's anti-union, and has received commendations from the american right to work committee. http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/awards.html
http://www.ronpaul.org/
on education: http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/education.html
http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/bordersecurity.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuCgC_Ntut0&feature=share
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/opinion-ron-paul-is-a-white-supremacist/
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul.htm
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de_CSuJCsfY&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw&feature=related
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/ron-paul-a-lesser-evil/.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl/1996_1343749/campaign-96-u-s-house-newsletter-excerpts-offer-am.html
http://michiganmessenger.com/402/white-supremacists-rallying-around-ron-pauls-presidential-campaign
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
How many of you, that are bemoaning the treatment Paul is receiving in corporate media, are willing to admit, that Hillary got the same treatment from that same corporate media, in her even more successful run against Obama, who won near the end of his primary battle with Hillary, simply because, without our being privy to precisely how, muscle was brought to bear on a few Super Delegates, to force Obama on us. Yes, for the 1000th time, Hillary WON the popular vote against Obama, despite massive corporate media opposition and fraud leveled against her. Even, taking Nader’s imbecilic notion that “voting for the lesser of two evils,” is still voting for evil, I certainly hope that his slogan was not meant to bring us to end up, having voted for the worst of two evils. But, actually applying his juvenile nonsense to our voting behavior, seems always to leave us with the worst outcome.
Ron Paul still gets invited onto shows on both Fox Pac and MSNBC regularly so he is hardly ignored. He just can’t get enough votes and the nomination. You have to get a nomination from either of the two official parties are you start out having to climb mount Everest to catch up to those who are either D or R get placed up there to start with.
funny … it is clearly the liberal/progressive/democrats that are so worried about ron paul getting enough attention … and it is not out of any sense of fairness to ron paul, it’s about the content of what ron paul says, which attacks most of the other republicans in an oblique kind of way.
i don’t like the republicans who spend all their time attacking democrats, and i don’t think it makes a lot of sense to support democrats who try to spin everything like they were on their own version of fox news.
when america can focus and concentrate on the first order problems and ignore the spin and nonsense from everyone is when maybe we will move towards actually solving some of our problems. i hope it happens soon.
Night-Gaunt and brux missed the point entirely. N-G posits that Paul gets some cable network attention, but that hardly overrides the blatant dismissals from the Stewart clip; nor does it answer for the mocking tone of what coverage he does get. Worse is how N-G, like the media, somehow knows how many votes Paul ‘can get’. He got the second-highest number of votes in the (actual) straw poll; which votes are you counting, N-G? More coverage might lead to more votes, but the assumptions you share with the media apparently preclude that. So, maybe that’s why he ‘can’t get enough votes’?
brux somehow takes examples of obvious media bias and ends up blaming liberal/progressive/democrats. Aren’t the facts clear enough without having to question motives? Either the coverage is fair or it isn’t…and it’s not even close. Is media coverage always only a subset of ‘spin and nonsense’ or does it carry real electoral consequences?
brux: liberals are outraged by the media shunning of Ron Paul for the same reason that they are outraged by the media shunning of liberals (Nader, McKinney, Kucinich etc.). Liberals and libertarians are people who have an actual underlying philosophy and reasoned set of principals which guide their political decisions. Most politicians in both parties are guided by the principal of winning elections and will change their politics according to whatever they perceive as most likely to facilitate this. The second largest group of politicians are guided by a book cobbled together by a pack of benighted bronze age barbarians who needed a belief system that would facilitate their endless wars with their neighbors. Libertarian beliefs and liberal beliefs are both rooted in the enlightenment and have some overlapping areas and some non-overlapping areas. From a liberal point of view a libertarian is a noble opponent and most politicians are not.
The reason why Ron Paul gets such shabby treatment from the mainstream media and even his own party is that he truly opposes many intrusive forms of big government, including that which is backed by his own party. He is a true supporter of the U.S. Constitution and has opposed wars and surveillance schemes. Many of the corporate cronies of the mainstream media and the big-government wing of the Republican Party often profit from the very big government programs that Ron Paul opposes.
Paul seems to be getting lots of support here for his opposition to US wars in the Middle East. fair enough. But lets look at his ties to neo-Nazis before we rush to his defense.
The question is not at all is Ron Paul passed over.It is why……and will “they” come clean about the reasons for the oversight.Reporters are paid to report, yet they don’t report much on what goes on in their own offices, when they are sitting down with their editors and getting marching orders.Im not saying there is necessarily anything nefarious going on here(though there may be).i am saying it would be very interesting to pick the brains of the mainstream and not so mainstream media on this phenomenon..Do a roll call.”how many of you here are writing about Ron Paul.”?And if not….why not?
I love his views on the economy for the most part.The thrill he gets up his pant leg about our constitution is admirable.His view on world affairs……..I would call naive.Not wrong mind you,just naive.They would lead us down the path of disengagement from world affairs.That would ultimately lead to isolationalist policies that would lead to a strategic night mare. Vacuum’s to be filled by countries like China.He really has no salient answers to scenarios like this.I thought Santorum hit him hard on Iran.
But he has earned a place at the table.He slaps the republicans about on their hypocrisy.And to the Dems he is like a man with a cross and a wooden stake.They run from the room hissing and ducking the sunlight.He is not good….he is great for the overall discussion.Straw poll aside he does not have a chance of course.
Ron Paul has NO ties to Nazi’s, “neo” nor otherwise. Some corporate news slander-maker found that – many years ago – he joined a group where ONE OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GROUP had a tie to a neo-nazi group.
just “thinking out loud” here, but i suspect his anti-war views are not welcome in the corporate media
Ron Paul…. the Republican Kucinich!
It’s time for public financing of elections. We MUST get the money out of politics.
Why give him much time anyway? No members from the Green Party or Socialist Party gets any time at all. Though Paul does keep his Republican cover, he does still occasionally say he wants to end the Drug War which most Democrats and Republicans are against. (Though more are seeing it is more of a problem than a solution but only after 97 years worth of failure.) The fact that Ron Paul had a news letter for 20 years that published white racist based material is known and isn’t a myth. (Though he has tried to bury it.) His lame defense that he “didn’t know” is the same as those who run Enron saying they were “out of the loop” and as truthful.
I’m a Democrat, but am upset that the media ignored the caucus goers who voted for Ron Paul. He came in only 152 votes short of 1st place and was absolutely ignored. The media’s vote was the only one that counted. Romney wasn’t even in Iowa and Perry wasn’t even on the ballot and the media decided they were the top 3! What a farce! Now, all we hear is “Perry, Perry, Perry.”