[mikemike]

The silence is deafening...

He finished just shy of Bahmann but barely got a mention in the coverage of the Iowa straw poll.

Note how little coverage Ron Paul got this weekend, even though he racked up 27.7% of the vote in Iowa, just shy of Michele Bachmann's 28.6%

From the Sunday political shows to major news websites to the weekend editions of the evening news, Paul was woefully underrepresented.

Bachmann, of course, was ubiquitous, but there seemed to be little demand for Paul, who has certainly given freely of his time in the past (CSPAN has noted that he almost always says yes when asked to appear on their air).

So, why ignore Paul?

Because he doesn't fit the media narrative. He's anti-war and pro-small government, a combination that essentially consigns him to a third party - much like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is socially liberal but fiscally moderate.

What happened to Ron Paul? - Culture Club blog - Boston.com

I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted.
[...]
There are so many “top tier” stories in the media today that I can barely count them, let alone read them all, and Bachmann is in all of them by virtue of her victory at Ames. The rest of the tier is made up of two candidates who skipped Ames, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

As The Daily Beast put it: “The new top tier of Bachmann, Perry, and Romney — created by Bachmann’s Iowa straw poll win, Perry’s entry into the race and Romney’s lead so far in many national and state polls — has unleashed torrents of talk about the reshaped race.”

Paul’s name was not mentioned in this piece nor in many others. A Wall Street Journal editorial Monday magnanimously granted Paul’s showing in the straw poll a parenthetical dismissal: “(Libertarian Ron Paul, who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second.)”
[...]
“They [the media] believe this guy is dangerous to the status quo,” Paul said, “but that is a reason to be more energized. I am a bit more challenging, but I am not on the wrong track. I don’t think that my ideas are more exotic. They are threatening.”

In his interview with me, Paul stressed his “peace” message — he wants our troops brought home from foreign soil — and believes that and his fiscal conservatism will gain him supporters.

“We are trying to reverse 100 years of history, the change from a republic to an empire, the change to tax and spending, who wants to admit that?” Paul said. “Who wants to admit we don’t have to be policeman of the world?”
[...]
There was a deliciously intriguing line in The Washington Post’s fine recap of Ames on Sunday. It said had Paul edged out Bachmann, “it would have hurt the credibility and future of the straw poll, a number of Republicans said.”

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

Amazing. And disturbing.

Ron Paul remains media poison - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

It makes you stop and think, why is the establishment and the media soooooooooooooooo afraid of this guy?

[jeffkrol]

Same reason MMT and monetary sovereignty is not constantly in the news...

He's also a bit off the "flat earth" pathway............ what do you expect.

I told you if he gives up the "gold standard" thing he is as close to "my kind" as you can get.......

See this type of logic is ruling the day, think about it............



Back to Ron.. hammered from "his own side" sort of.......

ahhh BUT Ron Paul isn't Running on the Libertarian platform which does have a Legal Weed Platform...he is running as a REPUBLICAN and yet I am asking for the Legal Weed plank in our platform if it's NOT there and Ron paul is trying to make weed legal guess what HE IS A RINO..and therefor an enemy of the Republic

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/if-ron-paul-is-a-republican-show-me-th...stion-2011011/

I am being told by some passionate (some might say 'fanatical') Ron Paul supporters that Ron Paul is not only a Republican but he is a REAL TRUE REPUBLICAN.
The fact that Ron Paul ran for office under the Libertarian (aka. The Legalise Pot Cocaine, and Hookers) Party is to be totally discounted.

NOW also being discounted is Ron Paul's alliance with Barney Frank, THE Architect for this current economic depression we are all sufferiung though. this alliance is to prodice WHAT....Legalised pot...oh excuse me Ron Paul using a page from the CLINTON Handbook..it's NOT Legalising pot..it's "de-criminalizing pot" (it's not a war it's a 'kinetic action'....it all depends on the meaning of the word 'is' is)

so MY question is simple:
Show me The 'Legal Marijuana' plank in the GOP Platform

Besides
REPUBLICANS really, really really, like blowing things up in other countries.........................

Might as well just compromise a bit and join the Dem. Progressive party. He'd get more respect..........

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/5-reasons-progressives-should-join-ron.html

[redrockcoulee]

Could well be that he is just not that interesting to the public and as news media must be profit driven they print or show what keeps the audience happy and the sponsors paying. Free enterprise working as it "should". As well does he have any chance of winning the primary? Most likely not and that is another reason.

I strongly disagree with much if not most of what he stands for. But he is an intelligent articulate person with well thought out and considered views and that also makes for a lot less sellable news than outlandish statements or even more outlandish behaviour. And lets face it some people no matter what they do just do not get the coverage they deserve, happened I think to your Gerald Ford and our Joe Who (I mean Clark but he was regularly called Joe Who and he was Prime Minister for 9 months).

[jogiba]

Ron Paul looks like a Walmart greeter.

[GeneV]

If you run every election and lose, sooner or later you are not taken seriously.

[luftfluss]

I find it interesting that, ever since Sarah Palin got involved in politics on a national scale, if the "media" ignores/mocks/etc. a conservative darling, the "Left" is afraid of that person. That's real self-aggrandizing on the part of the Conservatives.

The "media" mocks Sarah because she's both an idiot and a hypocrite. That said, she has the whole Cult of Personality thing going for her, and she knows how to capitalize on it.

Ron Paul, I don't think anyone on the Left is afraid of him. The media isn't. He's just boring. The sad thing is, as redrockcoulee points out, "boring" shouldn't disqualify Ron Paul as a candidate.

If the Republicans can get a Bill Clinton-esque candidate out there - smart, but with the people's touch and all that - they'd crush Obama.

[jeffkrol]

I find it interesting that, ever since Sarah Palin got involved in politics on a national scale, if the "media" ignores/mocks/etc. a conservative darling, the "Left" is afraid of that person. That's real self-aggrandizing on the part of the Conservatives.

The "media" mocks Sarah because she's both an idiot and a hypocrite. That said, she has the whole Cult of Personality thing going for her, and she knows how to capitalize on it.

Ron Paul, I don't think anyone on the Left is afraid of him. The media isn't. He's just boring. The sad thing is, as redrockcoulee points out, "boring" shouldn't disqualify Ron Paul as a candidate.

If the Republicans can get a Bill Clinton-esque candidate out there - smart, but with the people's touch and all that - they'd crush Obama.

There hard pressed to even find a 1/2 honest one.............

"It's not my husband and my farm," Bachmann said in a June interview on "Fox News Sunday," responding to a Los Angeles Times report about the farm subsidies and other government aid that the Bachmann family has received over the years. "And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm."

Bachmann's financial disclosures paint a different picture: Since 2006, she has reported receiving between $37,504 and $120,000 in income from the farm, including between $5,001 and $15,000 that she recently disclosed for the 2010 calendar year.

"Since the family partnership was established, income to the farm has been used to support Marcus' parents, and also reinvested into the farm to support its operations," Stewart said in an email statement. "A portion of the income received by the partnership included federal farm subsidies while Paul Bachmann managed the affairs of the farm. ... After Paul's passing, the partnership did not apply for or directly receive any federal farm subsidies, and the partnership's income consisted primarily of rent and other receipts. ... All income that was allocated to Michele, Marcus and their children under the partnership agreement was retained by the partnership and thus they did not directly benefit from the farm income or subsidies."

All members of Congress and candidates for federal office are required to disclose certain details about their financial circumstances by filing a yearly form that lists assets, income and liabilities within a broad range of amounts.

In 2009, Bachmann listed the farm as an asset worth between $100,001 and $250,000. In her 2010 forms, Bachmann valued the farm between $500,001 and $1 million.
Michele Bachmann disclosure includes farm receiving government subsidies - latimes.com

Reporting from Washington—
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has powered his political career on the largesse of donors like Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons, who gave the governor $1.12 million in recent years.

And donors like Simmons have found the rewards to be mutual, reaping benefits from Texas during Perry's tenure.

Perry has received a total of $37 million over the last decade from just 150 individuals and couples, who are likely to form the backbone of his new effort to win the Republican presidential nomination. The tally represented more than a third of the $102 million he had raised as governor through December, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice.

Nearly half of those mega-donors received hefty business contracts, tax breaks or appointments under Perry, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis.

Gov. Rick Perry's big donors fare well in Texas - latimes.com

[jogiba]

I find it interesting that, ever since Sarah Palin got involved in politics on a national scale, if the "media" ignores/mocks/etc. a conservative darling, the "Left" is afraid of that person. That's real self-aggrandizing on the part of the Conservatives.

The "media" mocks Sarah because she's both an idiot and a hypocrite. That said, she has the whole Cult of Personality thing going for her, and she knows how to capitalize on it.

Ron Paul, I don't think anyone on the Left is afraid of him. The media isn't. He's just boring. The sad thing is, as redrockcoulee points out, "boring" shouldn't disqualify Ron Paul as a candidate.

If the Republicans can get a Bill Clinton-esque candidate out there - smart, but with the people's touch and all that - they'd crush Obama.

Run Palin, run with the Tea Party idiots.

All the Republicans care about is protecting the rich and would like to cut their taxes to zero and let the rest be slaves to them.

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore in June that if elected she would abolish the capital gains tax, which Buffett said should be increased, and amend the tax code so every American pays income tax.

By eliminating the capital gains tax, which is currently 15 percent, the Tax Policy Center estimates that about 23,000 millionaires would no longer have to pay income tax because their only income comes from capital gains. This move would add $11 billion to the federal deficit, according to Forbes.


"In my perfect world, we'd take the 35 percent corporate tax rate down to nine so that we're the most competitive in the industrialized world. Zero out capital gains. Zero out the alternative minimum tax. Zero out the death tax," Bachmann, R-Minn., told the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore in June.

The Tax Policy Center estimated that eliminating just the capital gains tax would allow 23,000 more millionaires to skip out on paying income tax.


Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is also running for president, took it a step farther, suggesting in a June speech at the University of Chicago that not only should capital gains taxes and the "death tax" be eliminated, but interest income taxes and dividends taxes should be cut as well.

Those cuts, he said, would help simplify the "9,000-page monstrosity" that is the U.S. tax code. It would also enable the government to create just three tax brackets, instead of the current six, and reduce overall rates, he said.

According the Tax Policy Center , Pawlenty's proposal to eliminate those taxes on investment income would allow about 50,000 more millionaires to avoid paying any income tax.

Page 2: Almost 1,500 Millionaires Do Not Pay Income Tax - ABC News

[newarts]

There are many Ron Paul yard signs in my town.

There were many Kucinich signs a while back.

The media marginalizes candidates who are too far from what they perceive to be mainstream (in physical appearance or policy) even if much of what such candidates say is true and resonates with many people.

I wonder how the media decides who to marginalize? In some cases physical appearance is involved; in Ron Paul's case I'm guessing that some of his proposed actions are deemed by the media too extreme to be practical.

I doubt the decisions made by the press are explicit ones; rather they just kind of happen. As time goes by, coverage of a candidate slightly at the margin is decreased because he/she is at the margin - the decreased coverage by others puts him/her further to the margin resulting in less coverage - this spiral finally results in complete disappearance from the scene.

But what explains Bachman's and Palin's coverage? I think physical appearance and performance skills have something to do with it.

[shooz]

Perhaps it's because like mikemike,and other libertarians, he leaves MANY questions about beliefs and policy unanswered.

[Workingdog]

There are many Ron Paul yard signs in my town.

There were many Kucinich signs a while back.

The media marginalizes candidates who are too far from what they perceive to be mainstream (in physical appearance or policy) even if much of what such candidates say is true and resonates with many people.

I wonder how the media decides who to marginalize? In some cases physical appearance is involved; in Ron Paul's case I'm guessing that some of his proposed actions are deemed by the media too extreme to be practical.

I doubt the decisions made by the press are explicit ones; rather they just kind of happen. As time goes by, coverage of a candidate slightly at the margin is decreased because he/she is at the margin - the decreased coverage by others puts him/her further to the margin resulting in less coverage - this spiral finally results in complete disappearance from the scene.

But what explains Bachman's and Palin's coverage? I think physical appearance and performance skills have something to do with it.

On-subject here and very funny.
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 08/15/11 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

[deadwolfbones]

if you run every election and lose, sooner or later you are not taken seriously.

ding ding ding

[mikemike]

If you run every election and lose, sooner or later you are not taken seriously.

So why is anyone paying attention to Romney?

Why did they pay attention to McCain or Edwards in 2008?

[shooz]

They were paid to.

[redrockcoulee]

So why is anyone paying attention to Romney?

Why did they pay attention to McCain or Edwards in 2008?

If I am not mistaken both those had ran once before. Again the media must of thought that either of those two had either a chance of winning or that sufficient number of readers/viewers were interested in those individuals. Romeny had been the front runner earlier in the year and I doubt any editor would say we will not cover the front runners or the real zany ones at all.

I have seen articles on I think it was MSNBC web site and he has been discussed on their shows so it is not like he is not covered at all. Perhaps not as much as you would like but there are probably candidates that you are not interested in that are covered less and you might not notice that due to the lack of interest on your part.

It is the same as I have heard complaints of the weather network only covering Toronto weather right after they had some storms but when we have storms and Toronto does not it is our weather that is covered. It is human nature to precieve a bias in coverage on topics of your own person interests.

Would you like some govenment regulations requiring the media to cover him more